Not a quiet rebellion: Trump is losing support due to the war in Iran

The war with Iran and the story of the Strait of Hormuz are increasingly hitting the United States and President Donald Trump. His requests to NATO countries for help in freeing this important path were unsuccessful. In addition to this, Trump began to lose support within the country. Joe Kent, director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation, saying he could not support the ongoing conflict with Iran. Read more about what is happening in the Izvestia article.

Trump is losing allies

Trump's domestic allies and his team began to desert him. The director of the US Counterterrorism center, Joe Kent, a protege of the head of the national intelligence office, Tulsi Gabbard, left his post due to disagreements related to the war in Iran.

"I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no immediate threat to our country, and it is obvious that we started this war under pressure from Israel and its influential American lobby," he wrote on the social network X.

Joe Kent is a combat veteran. He served in the elite Green Beret unit for 20 years, and after leaving the army in 2018, he worked as a paramilitary operations officer at the CIA's Special Operations Center. He took over the post of director of the counterterrorism center in July last year. It is important to note that he was nominated for this position by Trump himself.

"He knows about the war firsthand, unlike many couch hawks like Ben Shapiro or Mark Levin, who actively advocate continued escalation," Malek Dudakov, an American political scientist, wrote about him on the Telegram channel.

The struggle between isolationists and US hawks

Other officials are trying not to interfere in Trump's adventure, Malek Dudakov notes. Tulsi Gabbard is also sabotaging the war with Iran. Recently, she and the CIA prepared a report stating that we should not wait for regime change in Tehran. "American intelligence officials claim that they warned Trump in advance about the risks of escalation. But he didn't want to listen to anyone."

Some, according to Dudakov, are trying not to get involved in the Iran story, leaving "everything at the mercy of Pete Hegseth (US Secretary of Defense — Ed.)".

"Meanwhile, apparatchiks leaving the Pentagon who are unhappy with Hegseth's militaristic attitude are starting to cluster around Gabbard. In fact, we are now witnessing a real war of hawks and isolationists in the Trump team against the background of the chaos in which they are stuck," the political scientist explains.

International columnist Andrei Kuzmak, in an interview with Izvestia, also points out that part of the Trump electorate is isolationist.

— Make America Great Again ("Make America Great Again" — Ed.) they perceived as America's return to itself. The issue of migration, for example, was key for them precisely in terms of rediscovering their identity. Some of the people who came to power or were brought to power by Trump professed these isolationist views, which, in particular, implied non—interference in the affairs of other states," he explains.

The expert draws attention to the fact that Trump did not set any goal for the operation in Iran from the very beginning, and what is happening now can be called a repeat of Iraq in 2003.

— In fact, this is a betrayal for that part of the electorate and those people who came to power with Trump, and whom he actually used to come to power. Therefore, there is no surprise that what is happening is causing such a tremor within the Trump team. These are the first officials, but not the first media personalities, who de facto declare by their behavior that Trump, in fact, betrayed their ideals," explains Andrey Kuzmak.

The United States is losing allies in NATO

Recently, there has been constant news in the media that NATO countries refuse to support the United States and Trump in the war against Iran, and they are also not going to help ensure the passage of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. The Finnish president explained this by the fact that the American president did not consult with European countries before the bombing of Iran.

As Malek Dudakov wrote, the Pentagon is afraid to send ships worth billions of dollars to the Strait of Hormuz, because the loss of even one Arleigh Burke destroyer will be very painful for the United States. In addition, according to him, it would take at least two or three destroyers to escort any US tanker. However, America does not have such opportunities. The problem, he said, is the shortage of minesweepers.

"Meanwhile, the Pentagon had to urgently withdraw the aircraft carrier groups as far as possible from the territory of Iran, because missiles are constantly flying at them. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln sailed to the shores of Oman — it is now more than a thousand kilometers from Iran, and Gerald Ford is hiding in the Red Sea," he writes.

In the end, Trump himself admitted that the United States had lost European "allies" in the war against Iran.

"Most of our NATO 'allies' have informed the United States that they do not want to participate in our military operation against the terrorist regime of Iran in the Middle East, despite the fact that almost all countries strongly agreed with what we are doing <...>," Trump wrote on the Truth Social network.

In his post, he also called NATO a "one-way street," adding that they would do nothing for the United States, especially in difficult times.

"We no longer 'need' or desire the help of NATO countries — we never needed it!" the American leader wrote.

Andrei Kuzmak points out that the NATO countries did not support the United States for one simple reason — the loss of the United States in this conflict.

— If the United States had won this conflict, then, I think, there would have been no problem. And now it is becoming increasingly obvious that Trump convened the coalition solely for two purposes — to use the resources that the United States lacks, as well as to share responsibility for what is happening with them, the observer believes.

He also points out that the NATO countries have very few resources, they are faced with the economic consequences of the military campaign, continue to participate in the Ukrainian crisis, and are completely non-militarily inclined, in many ways even anti-Israeli.