George W. Trump Goes to War

The best essay for understanding right-wing support for Donald Trump’s war against Iran was published in National Review in 2023, at the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion. Written by Tanner Greer, a conservative writer and China analyst, it argued that the official populist repudiation of George W. Bush and neoconservatism masked a deep continuity between the Iraq-era conservative mainstream and the Trump-era new right.

Both the Bush-era hawks and the Trumpian right, Greer suggested, were profoundly concerned with civilizational decadence and how it might be escaped. Both yearned for national purpose, both displayed a “vitalist drive,” both looked for ways to break out of the limited horizons imposed by liberal convention wisdom and post-Cold War consensus. Neoconservatives then cared more about democracy and human rights, officially, than most Trump supporters now, but the Iraq hawks cared most profoundly about power in a way that’s entirely relevant today: The famous quote from a Bush official about how “when we act, we create our own reality” directly anticipated the Trump-era belief that “you can just do things.”

In the Trump era, the zone of action was supposed to be the administrative state, immigration policy and higher education, rather than the Middle East. But it’s not surprising that the same spirit could be extended to a new round of warmaking, a friend/enemy battle with the mullahs rather than the liberal elite as the existential threat. The arguments for democracy promotion that were stapled onto the Iraq war have been torn away, Bill Kristol is basically a Democrat now and Dick Cheney died a committed foe of Trump. But the spirit of Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld broods over the Trump administration nonetheless.

That spirit is not all-encompassing, and the failures of hawkish foreign policy have had some real effects: That’s why you have a wider range of antiwar and war-skeptical voices on the right, from Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon to Matt Walsh and Megyn Kelly and Bronze Age Pervert, than you did in 2002 and 2003. In a world where the Iran intervention goes badly, it won’t take more than a decade for the right to repudiate it; the antiwar right could be re-ascendant as soon as the 2028 primary campaign.

But at the moment most Republicans support the war, and that support extends beyond the hawkish reflexes of older G.O.P. voters to include plenty of younger, very online and very Trumpy voices. My timeline is filled with social media grand strategists and right-wing anons and professed post-liberals making complicated geopolitical arguments about the benefits of the Iran war that remind me of arguments I heard from Iraq hawks 20 years ago — or that I made myself, even, after too many beers at a D.C. happy hour. And they’re joined by “based” voices asserting that this war is totally different from Bush’s war, a completely different paradigm, because Trump understands strength in a way the “Bushies” never did.

Know someone who would want to read this? Share the column.

Some of these writers can be forgiven for this perspective because they are young enough never to have watched a Rumsfeld news conference. But the idea that America can go into a rough neighborhood, hit our enemies hard, kill some of their leaders and force them to RESPECT OUR HEGEMONY is not some brilliant innovation of the based Trump era. It was the dominant right-wing perspective on the Iraq war (and, indeed, sometimes a centrist perspective as well), especially in the run-up to the invasion, with democracy promotion very much a minor theme. And the failure in Iraq was as much a failure of this kind of “We win, they lose” militarism as it was a failure of Wilsonian idealism.

Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

Ross Douthat has been an Opinion columnist for The Times since 2009. He is also the host of the Opinion podcast “Interesting Times.” He is the author, most recently, of “Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious.” @DouthatNYT • Facebook

© The New York Times