“Trump’s challenge isn’t just Tehran. It’s balancing Israel, the donor class, and his own movement—both of which are pulling him in different directions.” The quote, as published by the Financial Times, captures the crux of America’s impending conflict with Iran. It’s no longer limited to containing Iran’s ambitions, but may now be about Donald Trump’s political survival if the war backfires.

The pressures converging on Trump

There are three forces putting pressure on Donald Trump, all reinforcing each other in a vicious cycle that could prove catastrophic. The Israel lobby has been instrumental in shaping America’s approach to Iran all along. Netanyahu has been putting immense pressure on Trump to escalate against Iran, and the Israel lobby has been generously rewarding politicians who take a hawkish approach towards Iran. AIPAC has spent more than $100 million on the 2024 electoral cycle so far, making it clear to politicians on both sides of the aisle that politicians must stick to the script or face electoral consequences. Trump, desperate to win the Israel lobby’s vote, has shown that he’s all too willing to comply with their demands.

Trump knows that if he were to take a less hawkish approach towards Iran, he would be jeopardising the financial lifeline of his movement. A senior Republican fundraiser confided to the press that “There is no daylight between what the big donors want on Iran and what Netanyahu wants. Trump understands that perfectly.”

Trump knows that if he were to take a less hawkish approach towards Iran, he would be jeopardising the financial lifeline of his movement. A senior Republican fundraiser confided to the press that “There is no daylight between what the big donors want on Iran and what Netanyahu wants. Trump understands that perfectly.”

The donor class has also been putting pressure on Trump to take a more hawkish approach towards Iran. The donor class has been funding Trump’s campaigns and has been known to share his sentiments on Iran as well. The donor class’s pressure on Trump has been particularly transactional. Trump knows that if he were to take a less hawkish approach towards Iran, he would be jeopardising the financial lifeline of his movement. A senior Republican fundraiser confided to the press that “There is no daylight between what the big donors want on Iran and what Netanyahu wants. Trump understands that perfectly.”

From Greenland to the Gulf: Is Washington replacing the rules with raw power?

And then, of course, there is the fear that dares not speak its name: impeachment. With his razor-thin congressional majority and his many vulnerabilities in the law, Trump has a powerful incentive to wrap himself in the flag, create a crisis abroad, and portray himself as a wartime leader who is simply too valuable to the republic to be impeached. A president who fears losing Congress will always be tempted to find a foreign enemy. It is the oldest play in the book. Trump is running the play now.

Alarms are sounding across the spectrum. Senate Democrats issued a warning in January 2026 that unilateral strikes on Iran would “backfire and strengthen the regime.” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries went further, declaring that Trump “must seek approval from Congress before any U.S. action against Iran” and adding, “I wouldn’t put anything past this president.” Senator Chris Murphy spoke in constitutional terms: “The American people did not vote to give one man the power to start a war with Iran. Congress has to reassert itself before it’s too late.”

Even Trump’s former allies are sounding the alarm. Tucker Carlson, who was once a vocal supporter of the President, excoriated Trump as “complicit in Israel’s attack on Iran” and went on to warn, “What happens next will define Donald Trump’s presidency.” That a figure so deeply embedded in the Trump world would speak out so forcefully against his hero should be a sign of just how far Trump has gone in alienating his base.

Scholars of international relations are equally forthright in their analysis. Professor of international relations at the University of Chicago, John Mearsheimer, writes that Trump “has boxed himself in diplomatically regarding Iran, facing irreconcilable demands from Israel while trying to avoid another forever war.” Mearsheimer goes on to suggest that part of the problem was of Trump’s making.

Perhaps the most compelling, however, are the ones coming out of Israel itself. The opposition to Netanyahu has argued that “two desperate men – Trump and Netanyahu – are dragging their nations towards war to save their skins and avoid jail.”

This is not new in American politics. Nixon bombed Cambodia as the Watergate scandal was building. George W. Bush launched the Iraq War based on a concocted basis of weapons of mass destruction. Trump sees the same in a war with Iran: a unifying force, a silencer of critics, and a validator of his own indispensability.

The new calculus in the Gulf: How Beijing and Moscow have altered the Iran equation

But whereas the wars of the past have been destructive, a war with Iran will be catastrophic. It will tie up American forces in a region already destabilized by decades of US intervention, drain vital US resources, and isolate the United States at a time when the global competition for power demands clarity and credibility.

Even Trump’s former allies are sounding the alarm. Tucker Carlson, who was once a vocal supporter of the President, excoriated Trump as “complicit in Israel’s attack on Iran” and went on to warn, “What happens next will define Donald Trump’s presidency.”

Even Trump’s former allies are sounding the alarm. Tucker Carlson, who was once a vocal supporter of the President, excoriated Trump as “complicit in Israel’s attack on Iran” and went on to warn, “What happens next will define Donald Trump’s presidency.”

The Pentagon has repeatedly determined that Iran is not an imminent threat to the United States. The intelligence community’s assessment is that Iran’s nuclear program was contained and under inspection until President Trump pulled out of the JCPOA in May 2018.

For Trump, the strategic calculus is inextricably linked to his personal political branding. There is a consensus that the conflict serves no broader US interest, yet policy circles remain divided on whether the outcome will be a manageable strategic setback or a systemic disaster. A broad spectrum of Middle East experts argues that military intervention will likely produce a “rally-around-the-flag” effect in Tehran, entrenching hardliners and severely damaging US regional standing. The ultimate verdict on this gamble will remain obscured until guns fall silent.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor