A Party at War Over War
Republicans have to figure out whether they really want peace through strength or peace at any price. The wrong choice won't just destabilize the Republican Party, but the entire world order.
Israel’s strike on Iran didn’t just reverberate through the Middle East—it set off a political aftershock in the Republican Party. What once appeared to be a hairline crack has split wide open into something closer to the Grand Canyon of foreign policy divides. But unlike the real Grand Canyon, this one has no guardrails.
On one side stand the foreign policy realists (or “restrainers,” depending on your flavor of think tank), who believe America should mind its own business and stay out of distant conflicts. On the other are the more traditional conservatives, who believe, like it or not, that being the world’s top dog comes with responsibilities—one of which is keeping the other dogs from tearing one another apart, then turning on the leader.
This is more than an intramural debate. The implications are political, strategic, and potentially existential. Who wins this tug-of-war could shape the future contours of the GOP and, depending on world events, decide whether Republicans gain or lose power in 2026. It might also affect the stability of the world order America helped build - and has, up to now, largely sustained.
History offers a parable, and not a comforting one.
In the run-up to World War I, Great Britain sat atop the globe’s military, political, and economic hierarchy. But by the time the war ended - with a million British lives lost - the public’s appetite for leadership had curdled into exhaustion. Germany, battered but defiant, rearmed and returned. Britain, weary and wistful, found itself outmanned and outgunned - until a reluctant but capable cousin from across the pond arrived to finish the job.
The U.S. didn’t replace Britain because we asked for the job. We got promoted because the previous manager quit mid-shift. Now, a century later, America faces its own case of foreign adventure burnout. After two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan, the public has roughly the same enthusiasm for war as it does for jury duty.
That fatigue has opened the door for the growing contingent of “restrainer” Republicans.
When Israel launched strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tucker Carlson offered stark advice, “Drop Israel. Let them fight their own wars.”
Tucker’s podcasting compatriot, Darryl Cooper - and favorite “historian” - best known for not being a historian - suggested the U.S. respond by bombing Tel Aviv, a geopolitical strategy that could double as the West’s suicide note.
Meanwhile, Senator J.D. Vance, one of the movement’s rising stars, canceled a trip to Israel, citing concerns that Israel was really serious about finishing off Hamas. He had previously questioned whether America and Israel actually share a strategic interest in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
To be fair, American caution in the face of war isn’t new. We don’t like war, and we don’t need it to prop up our economy - unlike Russia or Iran, where conflict is practically a GDP strategy. Our track record with starting wars hasn’t been stellar either. Vietnam left emotional scars that still ache, and Iraq left an invoice we’ll be paying well into the next decade.
But when restraint starts rhyming with 1938, it may be time to page back and consider how caution turned out for the English. No, they’re not speaking German - but only because America came to their rescue.
If America goes the way of Great Britain and allows its military to slip into irrelevance as it borrows trillions to make life fat and people less responsible, who will come to our rescue?
Donald Trump, so far, seems content to channel his inner Churchill. He instinctively understands that appeasement doesn’t satisfy tyrants - it just gives them time to reload. And when you appease one dictator, you send a message to all the other tyrants waiting in the wings.
His instincts may save Republicans from themselves.
Recent polling suggests most Americans prefer a strong hand. A Harvard CAPS-Harris poll showed that 85% oppose Iran getting nuclear weapons, and over half would support military action to prevent it. Diplomacy is popular in theory. But if it fails - and the skies go dark - restraint won’t be seen as wisdom. It’ll be seen as negligence. And fair or not, voters tend to punish the party that was in charge when the music stopped.
If that happens, Republicans won’t be the only losers, world peace will take the bigger hit.
That means Republicans can’t afford to look weak or divided - not on this issue. Not now. In a world desperate for adult supervision, voters won’t be impressed with a party that looks like it’s arguing over who forgot to lock the front door.
Yes, we’ve got a $2 trillion deficit. And no, no one wants to play the world’s least favorite hall monitor. But tyrants don’t wait for your budget to balance. Xi won’t stop with Taiwan. Putin won’t be content with Ukraine. And the Ayatollah isn’t enriching uranium so he can power a retirement village.
The question for Republicans is whether we are a party that still sees America as the indispensable nation—or just another country hoping the bad guys pick on someone else.
If Iran goes nuclear or Russia storms Kyiv, voters may remember Biden’s weakness -but they’ll be asking: Where were you?
And history will answer.