MTG Slams Trump’s Iran Strike as Misguided War

Written by Thomas Bennett.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has publicly challenged President Donald Trump’s decision to launch unprecedented airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, questioning why the U.S. prioritizes foreign conflicts over domestic threats like drug cartels. Her remarks, posted on June 22, 2025, highlight a growing tension within the Republican Party over U.S. foreign policy and military priorities. Greene’s critique, rooted in her “America First” stance, underscores the disconnect between Trump’s campaign promises to combat cartels and the recent escalation in the Middle East. This article explores the context of the Iran strikes, Greene’s arguments, the domestic issues she prioritizes, and the broader implications for U.S. policy.

The Iran Airstrikes and Greene’s Dissent

On Saturday, June 21, 2025, the U.S. conducted airstrikes targeting three Iranian nuclear sites, marking the first use of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, commonly known as the “bunker buster” bomb. These strikes, aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities, followed Israel’s initial attack on Iran, escalating a regional conflict. President Trump authorized the operation, which utilized advanced weaponry to penetrate deeply fortified targets, signaling a robust response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The strikes have drawn international condemnation and prompted Iran to retaliate with missile attacks on U.S. bases in Qatar, heightening fears of a broader war.

Greene, a vocal Trump supporter, expressed dismay over the strikes, arguing that they divert resources from pressing domestic issues. In a detailed post on X, she emphasized that the U.S. has not employed similar military force against Mexican drug cartels, which she considers a more immediate threat to American lives. Greene’s dissent is notable for its timing, coming just days after the strikes, and for its direct challenge to the administration’s priorities. While reaffirming her support for Trump, she insisted that disagreement on this issue is valid, reflecting a nuanced position within the MAGA movement.

The use of the GBU-57, a 30,000-pound bomb designed to destroy deeply buried targets, underscores the scale of the U.S. operation. The bomb’s deployment, a first in combat, signals a willingness to escalate military engagement in the Middle East. However, Greene’s critique suggests that such actions may not align with the expectations of Trump’s base, who prioritized domestic security and economic prosperity during his campaign.

Cartels vs. Foreign Wars: Greene’s Core Argument

Greene’s primary contention is that the U.S. should focus on combating drug cartels, which she describes as “international terrorist networks” responsible for hundreds of thousands of American deaths. Fentanyl, the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18–45, has fueled a public health crisis, with over 100,000 overdose deaths annually in recent years. Greene highlighted Trump’s 2023 campaign pledge to “wage war on the cartels,” which included designating them as foreign terrorist organizations, deploying military assets, and disrupting their operations. While Trump has followed through on some promises, such as border security measures, Greene argues that the absence of military action against cartels contradicts his rhetoric.

The cartels, primarily based in Mexico, operate sophisticated drug tunnels, production labs, and trafficking networks that supply fentanyl and other narcotics to the U.S. These organizations, such as the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartels, generate billions in revenue while destabilizing border communities. Greene’s point is incisive: if the U.S. can deploy bunker busters and Tomahawk missiles against Iran, why not target cartel infrastructure with similar resolve? This question resonates with Americans frustrated by the opioid epidemic and rising crime, who see foreign wars as a distraction from domestic crises.

Trump’s campaign video from 2023 outlined a comprehensive strategy, including Special Forces operations and cyber warfare, to dismantle cartel leadership. Yet, the focus on Iran suggests a shift in priorities, possibly driven by geopolitical pressures from allies like Israel or concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. Greene’s critique taps into a broader sentiment that U.S. military might should serve American interests first, particularly when domestic threats are palpable and unresolved.

Israel’s Role and America’s Foreign Policy Fatigue

Greene’s posts also criticized Israel for initiating the conflict with Iran, noting that Israel possesses its own nuclear arsenal. She argued that the U.S. is being drawn into “another foreign war” at a time when it should focus on domestic greatness. This perspective reflects a growing wariness among some Americans about the nation’s role as a global policeman. Since the Vietnam War, the U.S. has engaged in numerous conflicts—Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria—often with significant costs in lives, money, and political capital. Greene, at 51, referenced her lifelong observation of these wars, expressing exhaustion with funding “foreign causes” at the expense of American prosperity.

Israel’s preemptive strike on Iran, followed by U.S. involvement, has fueled accusations of entanglement in a conflict not of America’s making. The U.S. provides Israel with billions in annual aid, including advanced weaponry, which amplifies perceptions of obligation. Greene’s assertion that “this is not our fight” echoes a sentiment among isolationist-leaning Republicans who prioritize domestic issues like infrastructure, manufacturing, and trade. Her call for “great trade deals” and low inflation reflects a vision of economic nationalism, contrasting with the neoconservative push for military intervention abroad.

The broader context of U.S.-Israel relations is critical. Israel views Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, given Tehran’s support for proxy groups like Hezbollah. The U.S., as Israel’s primary ally, often aligns with its security concerns, but Greene’s remarks suggest that this alignment may not resonate with all Americans. The fear of Iranian terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, as Greene noted, adds a domestic dimension to the conflict, complicating the narrative of a purely foreign issue.

Our Take

Representative Greene’s critique of the Iran airstrikes raises legitimate questions about U.S. priorities in an era of finite resources and mounting domestic challenges. The decision to deploy the GBU-57 bunker buster against Iran, while strategically significant, contrasts starkly with the lack of comparable action against drug cartels, which pose a direct threat to American lives. Greene’s focus on fentanyl deaths and cartel networks is a compelling argument for redirecting military and political capital toward the U.S.-Mexico border, where the opioid crisis continues to devastate communities. Her dissent, though controversial, reflects a broader frustration with foreign entanglements that drain national resources.

However, Greene’s portrayal of Israel as the instigator oversimplifies a complex geopolitical reality. Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while within its sovereign rights under international law, have long alarmed the U.S. and its allies, and the strikes may reflect a calculated effort to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. The challenge lies in balancing these external threats with domestic priorities. Trump’s campaign promises to combat cartels were a cornerstone of his appeal, and failing to act on them risks alienating supporters who expected decisive action closer to home.

In my view, the U.S. must adopt a dual-track approach: maintaining pressure on Iran through diplomacy and targeted actions while intensifying efforts against cartels. The Department of Defense could explore non-military solutions, such as enhanced border security and international cooperation with Mexico, to disrupt cartel operations. Simultaneously, engaging with Iran through intermediaries like Qatar could de-escalate tensions and restore dialogue on the nuclear issue. Greene’s call for an “America First” policy resonates, but it must be tempered with a realistic assessment of global threats. Ignoring either cartels or Iran would be shortsighted; addressing both requires strategic discipline and political will.