Iran and Israel rift in US politics: How will foreign policy affect the elections?

If the war on the Iranian front deepens and becomes inextricable, and if rising inflation and rising interest rates hit the American economy, a heavy defeat awaits the Republicans in the 2026 Congressional elections. Robert Stephen Ford, former US Ambassador to Algeria and Damascus, wrote about the ongoing foreign military intervention debates on the 250th anniversary of America's founding and the divisions in US domestic politics for AA Analysis. Since the founding of America, there have always been tough debates and deep disagreements among the people.

While domestic issues such as slavery divided the newly established country in two, foreign policy and the extent to which the United States should intervene in wars abroad have always been a source of disagreement. Today, 250 years later, Americans agree on the need to preserve alliances and take an active role in global affairs, but they still disagree when it comes to all existing alliances or unnecessary wars. US President Donald Trump gambled that the Iran operation would end in a flash, just like the Venezuela intervention in January, but he lost.

Four months after the outbreak of the war, an Ipsos poll dated June 2026 revealed that 57 percent of Americans (including 29% of Republicans) disapprove of Trump's handling of the Iran process. Although most Republicans still support the war, Trump's failure to explain how this step would serve American national interests further reinforced the reaction against "non-essential wars" among the base of the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement. MAGA influencers such as Tucker Carlson, FOX TV personality Megyn Kelly and media star Candace Owens blasted the administration for reneging on its promise to stay away from military interventions abroad.

Interestingly, this group aligns with left-leaning Democrats in arguing that resources spent on foreign wars should be diverted to domestic issues such as the economy. This group actually represents a return to the American stance of the late 18th century, when the United States was much more cautious in foreign policy and focused on domestic development. On the other hand, US Vice President JD Vance, who aims to support the MAGA base in the 2028 presidential race, received permission from Trump to lead the negotiations leading to the memorandum of understanding and ceasefire promise with Iran on June 17.

While Trump and Vance were trying to withdraw the United States from the Iran war and strengthen their position in domestic politics, on the other hand, they lashed out at the Israeli government for rejecting the reconciliation text. On June 16, Trump targeted Israel's operations in Lebanon that disrupted the reconciliation process. Vance, on the other hand, clearly warned Israel not to anger the Trump administration, which is, in his words, "its last friend in the world.

Addressing the Tel Aviv administration, Vance underlined that they should not violate the tenuous ceasefire with Iran by attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon. Blaming Israel for taking up arms in every crisis, Vance signaled a brand new vision in which the USA and Iran could one day cooperate instead of endless conflicts. Although US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defends the Iran agreement in front of the cameras, the lines between the lines of his statements document how deep the crack is in the Republican Party, both in this agreement and in the Israeli axis.

In stark contrast to Vance, who extended an olive branch to "reformers" in Tehran, Rubio directly targets the Iranian regime by calling it "extremists" and "wackos. Moreover, he refrains from saying a single word about Israel's attacks in Lebanon. According to Rubio, unlike the Trump and Vance duo, the only way to silence the guns in Lebanon is to establish a separate diplomacy table that completely excludes Iran from the game.