GOP Divide: Carlson’s Anti-War Crusade Ignites Tensions

Soldiers and tanks in the foggy battlefield.

As Washington elites dismiss warnings about war with Iran and Venezuela, conservatives are left asking whether America First voters or the permanent war machine will shape Trump’s second-term foreign policy.

Story Snapshot

Tucker Carlson has spent years warning that U.S. policy toward Iran could spark a wider war dragging in Russia, China, and the BRICS bloc.
Early 2025 clashes among Iran, Israel, and U.S. forces stayed regional, giving critics ammunition to say his “World War III” predictions were wrong.
A growing rift inside the GOP now pits America First non‑interventionists against neoconservative hawks and pro‑Israel hardliners.
For conservative voters, the core issue is whether Trump’s second term resists the D.C. war lobby and protects U.S. lives, energy prices, and constitutional priorities at home.

Tucker Carlson’s Warning: Iran, BRICS, and the Risk of a Wider War

Tucker Carlson has built a steady case that attacking Iran is nothing like the old playbook of Iraq or Libya, arguing that decades of regime‑change adventures should have taught Washington a hard lesson. He points to Iran’s links with Russia, China, and the broader BRICS network, warning that any U.S. or Israeli strike risks dragging in major powers and destabilizing global energy markets, with ordinary American families paying the price at the pump and on the home front.

In mid‑2024, Carlson used his social media platforms to spell out this scenario in stark terms, warning that thousands of Americans could die in the opening week of a war with Iran and that gas prices could skyrocket to crippling levels. He framed such a conflict as a betrayal of Trump voters who rejected endless wars and voted for stronger borders and a focus on problems at home. That message resonated deeply with conservatives already battered by inflation and globalist distractions.

They Predicted World War III – Hawks Say They Were Wrong

When Iranian missiles later targeted U.S. and Israeli sites in early 2025, many feared the spiral Carlson had described was beginning. Instead, the fighting stayed limited and short, with both sides pulling back from all‑out confrontation. Afterward, establishment commentators argued that talk of “World War III” had been overblown, using the contained nature of the conflict to paint Carlson and similar voices as alarmists who exaggerated risks to restrain U.S. support for Israel and broader regional objectives.

That narrative quickly became ammunition for neoconservative and pro‑Israel hawks who had long been uncomfortable with Carlson’s America First populism. Writers and pundits pointed to his past predictions, claiming he had misread both Trump’s instincts and the realities of U.S. power. For these critics, the fact that the crisis did not erupt into a world war proved that strong deterrence and willingness to use force can manage threats without plunging the United States into another global catastrophe, undermining populist skepticism toward intervention.

Republican Civil War: America First vs. Neoconservatives

Behind the media sparring lies a much deeper struggle inside the Republican Party over what conservative foreign policy should look like in the Trump era. Carlson and his allies argue that the same establishment that mishandled Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya is again pushing the country toward unnecessary war, often under the banner of defending democracy or standing with allies. They say America First means protecting U.S. borders, the dollar, and working‑class families, not policing every border in the Middle East.

On the other side, Senate Republicans aligned with traditional hawkish thinking have moved aggressively to marginalize anti‑interventionist conservatives. In private briefings, they reportedly mock world‑war warnings and label figures like Carlson “anti‑Israel influencers,” urging colleagues to treat them like left‑wing cable hosts rather than serious voices. That strategy aims to preserve a foreign‑policy consensus that keeps military options on the table and treats skepticism about overseas commitments as a political liability rather than a caution born of experience.

Venezuela, Congress Briefings, and Trust in the War Narrative

Late‑2025 remarks from Carlson about a possible U.S. move against Venezuela added another layer to the debate. He said members of Congress had been briefed that a war was coming and suggested Trump might address the nation about it, while acknowledging he did not know whether the operation would actually be launched. The claim fueled headlines and online debate, with supporters seeing it as another example of the war machine gearing up and critics treating it as proof that dramatic predictions had become part of his media brand.

For conservatives who watched the permanent bureaucracy outlast the last administration and undermine border security, speech rights, and election integrity, the pattern is familiar. They see a ruling class that shrugs at open borders and cultural radicalism yet rushes to fund foreign interventions and entanglements. The real question driving grassroots frustration is not whether every prediction of world war comes true but whether anyone in Washington will finally put American sovereignty, families, and soldiers ahead of globalist ambitions.