In Donald Trump’s Washington, where chaos and ever-tightening authoritarianism are the order of the day, you have to take your good news where you can find it: The firing last Thursday of the ultra-hawkish national security adviser Michael Waltz was as close to unmitigated good news as one can reasonably hope for at the present moment. To be sure, the White House denies that it was a firing—or even a demotion; just a shuffling of the deck so Waltz can now be UN ambassador. But all indications are that Waltz was moved from a high-profile and powerful post to a symbolic one because he displeased Donald Trump. A further unexpected but important development is the revelation that Waltz lost his position not just for his general militarism but because Waltz was allying himself with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in pushing for an American attack on Iran.

On Saturday, The Washington Post reported that Waltz fell out of favor in part because he “appeared to have engaged in intense coordination with Netanyahu about military options against Iran ahead of an Oval Office meeting between the Israeli leader and Trump.”

That Netanyahu wants the United States to launch a war against in Iran is hardly news. The Israeli leader has been pushing for an American attack for decades, hoping that this would permanently remove the only obstacle to an American-Israeli regional hegemony. A further factor is that Iran alone of the major nations in the region has actually provided more than lip service to the idea of Palestinian nationhood. Nor is it unexpected that Waltz would work with Netanyahu on this dangerous scheme. Waltz is a classic neoconservative of the type that flourished under George W. Bush: someone who prefers military solutions to maintain American global hegemony even at the risk of war with Russia, China, and Iran (possibly at the same time).

What is a new development is that Trump, although he elevated Waltz and other neoconservatives to high positions, remains wary of full-throttle militarism. On Iran at least, Trump wants to try to negotiate a nuclear deal first. The worry is that he might be open to a war against Iran if the negotiations fail—a real possibility, because, despite his self-proclaimed mastery of “the art of the deal,” Trump is not actually very good at negotiating with foreign powers.

As I’ve noted in several recent columns, Trump’s MAGA movement is currently fighting an important civil war on foreign policy, one that has been regrettably ignored by the mainstream media as well as by progressives. Nobody in Trump’s ambit is truly anti-war, but there is an important divide between the neoconservatives (full-spectrum militarists whom Trump has publicly disdained but still continues to hire for his administration because they are an important GOP faction) and the America First nationalists (who are more wary of military interventions in Europe and the Middle East, if only because their ambitions are elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere and in Asia).

Waltz’s sin seems to be that he was pushing the neoconservative agenda—and, more importantly, Netanyahu’s agenda—further than Trump was willing to go.

Current Issue

December 2025 Issue

The Washington Post notes that Waltz’s general assertiveness as well as his role in the Signal group chat scandal were also factors, but the push for war with Iran was a step too far:

But Waltz also upset Trump after an Oval Office visit in early February by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when the national security adviser appeared to share the Israeli leader’s conviction that the time was ripe to strike Iran….

The view by some in the administration was that Waltz was trying to tip the scales in favor of military action and was operating hand in glove with the Israelis.

“If Jim Baker was doing a side deal with the Saudis to subvert George H.W. Bush, you’d be fired,” a Trump adviser said, referring to Bush’s secretary of state. “You can’t do that. You work for the president of your country, not a president of another country.”

In a carefully worded post on X, Netanyahu made it look like he was disputing the report, arguing, “Contrary to the Washington Post report, PM Netanyahu did not have intensive contact with Mike Waltz on Iran.” But alert readers have noticed that the Post said nothing about “intensive contact” but rather “intensive coordination” (which doesn’t require much contact). Netanyahu’s non-denial denial leaves unchallenged the core of the Post’s reporting, that the Israeli prime minister is pushing for an American war with Iran and that Waltz was an ally in this effort.

Israeli foreign policy analyst Danny Citrinowicz called attention to Trump’s current opposition to an Iran attack, but rightly notes that if negotiations fail, the question of war will again be on the table:

Israeli leaders need to be very, very careful not to find themselves in the middle of the debate within the administration between MAGA and the hawks regarding Iran. Things that Israel could have done under other administrations will be unforgiving [sic] in this administration. If Trump wants a deal with Iran, then Israel needs to help him get the best and most realistic one rather than fighting the WH. I think that Trump won’t be forgiving for those who will try to ruin the chance for a deal. If a deal won’t be achieved, then we are in a “different ball game”, but until then, Israel needs to be very, very cautious.

Trump’s current reluctance to attack Iran is surely influenced by the rising America First faction, which in the name of nationalism is wary of giving a carte blanche to any foreign nation—even Israel. This faction is on the far right of the American political spectrum, but has become an important brake on the push for war.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene recently tweeted:

I represent the base and when I’m frustrated and upset over the direction of things, you better be clear, the base is not happy. I campaigned for no more foreign wars. And now we are supposedly on the verge of going to war with Iran. I don’t think we should be bombing foreign countries on behalf of other foreign countries especially when they have their own nuclear weapons and massive military strength.

The militantly right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson sounded a similar note:

Whatever you think of tariffs, it’s clear that now is the worst possible time for the United States to participate in a military strike on Iran. We can’t afford it. Thousands of Americans would die. We’d lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country. And yet we’re closer than ever, thanks to unrelenting pressure from neocons. This is suicidal. Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.

While Greene and Carlson are dangerous extremists on many other issues, this is one time they are right. The danger is that the anti-war position will be monopolized (or nearly so) by the far right. While Democratic lawmakers are showing an increasing and very welcome willingness to criticize Israel on its horrific war against Palestinian civilians, a broader critique of Israel’s role as regional warmonger is also needed.

To his credit, Democratic Representative Ro Khanna took sides with Marjorie Taylor Greene about the folly of a war with Iran:

I agree @mtgreenee we should not get into a war with Iran. The war in Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder of the 21st century. Americans don’t want another war in the Middle East. They want prosperity at home.

More Democrats need to take a stand in total opposition to a war against Iran. Just as the devil shouldn’t have all the best tunes, the reactionary right shouldn’t have a monopoly on opposing destructive wars.

While Waltz’s firing (or move to a new job) is a positive development, there’s ample reason to worry about what will happen in the likely eventuality of the negotiations with Iran failing. We’re already seeing war hawks using the failure of the bombing campaign against Yemen to argue for a war against Yemen’s ally, Iran. Even with Waltz gone, Trump has plenty of militarists in his inner circle, including Marco Rubio (who now holds down four posts, including secretary of state and interim national security adviser) and Pete Hegseth (the belligerent defense secretary). And on matters not relating to Iran—most importantly the ongoing assault on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank—Trump is more than happy to give full support to anything Israel does. This policy is so destructive that even establishment stalwarts such as Richard Haass, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, are expressing horror.

The only way to stop a war with Iran is for the creation of a broad anti-war movement to supplement far-right voices such as Carlson and Greene. Progressive Democrats need to take command of this movement, which is both necessary in and of itself and would also help defuse the ability of the far right to exploit this issue. Too often in the last decade, liberals and the left have allowed the right to hijack what are truly progressive positions (notably on trade and opposition to the Forever Wars). There is still a chance to fix this problem, but it requires being forthright and blunt about the dangers and folly of empire—and about the peril from putative allies that push for war.