Divisions on the law between those who believe in a global system supported by American military power and others who see this system as a drain on American resources are not new. That schism has persisted for decades.
The latter group, which has often included ultra -ativist and racist figures, was pushed further on the sidelines after attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
The United States has responded to these attacks by launching a “war against terrorism”, conservatives strongly supporting US interventions in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
But these wars have become considered bloody and prolonged failures, while the public began to become more skeptical of participation in the United States abroad.
“The young people in particular who witnessed these disastrous wars are not sold on the advantages of this world’s American security architecture or the ideology that leads to interventions abroad,” said Mills.
Since the first entry into office in 2017, Trump has mainly continued the use of American military routine abroad, supervising drone strikes across the Middle East and Africa and murdering Iranian General Qassem Soleimani during his first mandate.
During his second term, he openly thought about the use of military force to take control of the Panama and Greenland Canal.
But the experts said that he had also seized the political advantages of presenting himself as an anti-war candidate and criticism of a foreign policy which has become discredited in the eyes of many voters.
In his presidential campaign in 2024, for example, Trump promised to quickly end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, where the War of Israel in Gaza killed more than 49,617 Palestinians-a figure which, according to experts, is probably a sub-competition, since the thousands of bodies still buried under the stripping.
Trump’s position on Ukraine has pleased many things on the right, which consider its actions as proof of a transactional approach that puts American interests first.
The president, for example, put pressure on Ukraine to give access to the United States to its mineral resources in compensation for the cost of American military aid. This week, he even launched control of changes in Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in American hands.
But Trump hesitated more to exerting pressure similar to Israel, even if the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects a cease-fire that Trump himself boasted of making.
“In general, I think we have seen the Trump administration make certain decisions that reflect a desire to lower the Convention in a way that some people find alarming, such as getting closer to Russian preferences to end the war in Ukraine,” said Annellle Sheline, researcher of researcher of Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an anti-interventionist thinking group.
“But I think that Israel has its own gravity, and policies linked to Israel will not be affected by some of these same impulses. He seems to have become something from a blind spot for this administration, as for Biden. ”
This inconsistency indicates greater tensions within Trump’s coalition.
While ambivalence and even the outright animosity towards Ukraine have become common to the right, the foreign policy writer Matthew Petti, deputy editor -in -chief of the Libertarian magazine Reason, said that the conservative movement was drawn in different directions with regard to Israel, a long -standing American ally.
“The new aversion to foreign wars, in particular in the Middle East, has established itself uncomfortably with the right-wing cultural affinity for Israel,” he told Al Jazeera by SMS.
“The question has become impossible to ignore lately, because Israel has become the main justification for us to be entangled in the region.”
He explained that if a more important generational debate on Israel and the American foreign policy takes place, the extreme right is specifically struck by internal divisions.
Some, for example, see Israel as a precious model for muscular nationalism. On the other hand, figures like Nick Fuentes, who embraces unfailing anti -Semitism, oppose the embrace of Israel by Trump.
It remains to be seen how these contradictions will take place in the Trump movement.
While public support for Israel has weakened in recent years, especially among young voters, the Republican Party remains largely in favor of solid American aid in the country of the Middle East.
And Trump himself seems to be little influenced by internal divisions on his strikes on the Houthis.
“Huge damage has been inflicted on the Houthi barbarians,” he wrote in an article on social networks on Wednesday. “They will be completely wiped!”
