'A Regime Change War With NO PLAN!' Is Attack on Iran Really 'America First'?

Multiple panelists, including the host Piers Morgan and guest Tim Miller, highlight that Trump campaigned explicitly on an anti-war platform, promising to end 'foolish, stupid days of never-ending wars' and keep the US out of World War III. His current military actions in Iran are viewed as a direct betrayal of these promises, alienating a significant portion of his base and swing voters who supported his 'pro-peace ticket.'

Trump's past statements: 'I was the first president in decades who didn't start a war.' (01:53) J.D. Vance's past articulation that 'a war with Iran would be expensive and against his country's interests.' (02:25) Marjorie Taylor Greene's criticism: 'We said no more foreign wars. No more regime change... Trump, Vance, basically the entire admin campaigned on it and promised to put America first.' (30:44)

Critics across the panel, including Tim Miller, Dave Smith, and Jojo Carducci, express deep concern over the apparent lack of a coherent strategy or 'endgame' for the Iran operation. They argue that if the strikes do not result in a swift, overwhelming success—such as a quick regime change without prolonged conflict—it could 'destroy Donald Trump's presidency' and lead to a 'shellacking' in the midterms, making him a lame-duck president.

Tim Miller: 'The idea here is that this is a moment where the Iranian people have an opportunity to grab their own freedom... that requires troops on the ground.' (09:07) Dave Smith: 'If this isn't an overwhelming success in that very unlikely scenario that you laid out, I think this destroys Donald Trump's presidency.' (43:33) Jojo Carducci: 'There is no end game. There was no clear objective. I'm still waiting for him to explain this to anybody coherently.' (27:28)

Ben Ferguson defends Trump's actions, framing them as a necessary national security decision rather than a political one. He argues that Iran is a significant threat, a 'sponsor of terror' that funds groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The strikes are presented as a means to neutralize this threat and protect American and Israeli interests, with the aim of avoiding a 'forever war' by focusing on targeted operations.

Ben Ferguson: 'Iran is doing and what they're clearly trying to do... not only with Israel, but also with the United States of America, you just cannot allow them to get even anywhere close to having a nuclear weapon.' (04:35) 'They've killed more American troops in my lifetime than any other country.' (04:50) 'This is not going to be sending troops into Iran.' (05:35)

The concept of a 'Venezuela-style' operation—a quick, targeted strike to remove leadership without a prolonged ground presence—is discussed as a potential model for Iran. However, critics like Tim Miller and Jojo Carducci highlight key differences, such as immediate American casualties in Iran and the lack of a clear successor, making a simple 'take out the leader and leave' approach far more complex and dangerous in a country of 93 million with a large, committed regime military.

Ben Ferguson: 'If there's a situation where you have to go in and take someone out in the way that we did in Venezuela... we're not invading Venezuela. We're not staying in Venezuela.' (06:13) Tim Miller: 'This is very different from Venezuela for a couple reasons. Number one, four people have already died. That didn't happen in Venezuela. Number two, we had a clear successor... All of them are dead.' (12:15)