Growing gap between Republican Party leadership, which supports the campaign against Iran, and a populist-isolationist camp in the US, which is spreading anti-war, anti-Israel, and antisemitic messages.
The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, today (Thursday, 9 April 2026), released a special report that examines American public sentiment regarding the war against Iran (https://www.gov.il/en/pages/epic-fury-us-public-sentiment-analysis-2026-03). The report analyzes its potential impact on the US political system, anti-Israel discourse, and the safety of Jewish communities.
While support for the campaign remains high among the Republican public, an anti-war discourse identified with isolationist currents on the American right, primarily "America First" and "America Only", is intensifying. This discourse does not stop at opposing military involvement; it frequently devolves into narratives such as: "Israel First", "Dying for Israel" and accusations of Israeli or Jewish "control" over US foreign policy.
According to the report (which covers the period up to April 1, 2026), online discourse reflects a sharp polarization: Establishment Leadership, Republican leaders, political officials, and mainstream conservative commentators frame the campaign as an essential necessity to curb the Iranian threat, ensure regional deterrence, and protect US allies. However, prominent figures in the populist and anti-establishment sphere frame the war as a violation of the "no more wars" promise, claiming it fails to serve American interests.
The report highlights a significant surge in anti-war messaging on social media, particularly on X (formerly Twitter). These messages are often accompanied by antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories against Israel including thousands of mentions of terms like "Neocon", “America First” and "Dying for Israel” which attempt to link the war to domestic US political conspiracies.
According to the report, it also appears that while the majority of Republicans currently support action against Iran, this support is not unlimited. As the campaign lengthens, expands, or leads to significant economic costs, the rifts within the Republican camp may deepen, and voices opposing American involvement may grow stronger.
The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism emphasizes that these trends may have direct implications not only for Israel-US relations, but also for the level of risk faced by Jewish and Israeli communities in the United States.
Past experience shows that when anti-Israel narratives are combined with accusations of "dual loyalty," "Jewish control," or "wars for Israel," the path to an increase in antisemitic incidents is particularly short.
Amichai Chikli, Minister of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism:
"The picture emerging from the report is concerning: alongside significant American support for the war against the Iranian terror regime, a discourse is expanding in the U.S. that attempts to present Israel as acting manipulatively, as if it dragged the U.S. into war. This is a dangerous discourse that often devolves from political and diplomatic criticism into conspiratorial rhetoric with a sharp antisemitic aroma. Our role is to identify these trends in time, alert people to them, and act together with our partners to understand deep-seated trends and know how to prepare and respond to them."
Avi Cohen-Scali, Director General of the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism:
"The report emphasizes how much the perceptual arena in the U.S. affects reality on the ground. We identify an increasingly tightening connection between internal political debate in the U.S. and the dissemination of anti-Israel and antisemitic messages online. The National Command Center of the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism continues to monitor developments, analyze the discourse in real-time, and provide updated assessments to relevant parties in Israel and around the world."
The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism notes that heading into this coming November and the U.S. midterm elections, the issue is expected to continue shaping the political discourse on the American Right. They emphasize the need for continued close monitoring of the evolution of narratives, their impact on public opinion, and the potential implications for Israel and American Jewry.
Executive Summary of the Research
The report analyzes Republican positions toward the war with Iran as of March 2026 and assesses how internal U.S. political divisions may influence the conflict's progression. A summary of recent U.S. public opinion polls indicates that approximately half of Americans oppose the war, about a third support it, and a large portion of the public remains uncertain. Opposition to the strikes is most notable among Democrats and Independents, while Republican voters largely support the war. The vast majority of the American public opposes the deployment of U.S. ground troops.
The report reveals rifts within the Republican Party. A stream identified with the "America First" isolationist approach argues that the strikes contradict the anti-war rhetoric of previous campaigns and risk dragging the U.S. into another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict, leading to high economic costs that harm domestic interests. Some actors in this camp also disseminate "Israel First" narratives, alongside messages such as "Dying for Israel," which frame the war as serving Israeli or foreign interests at the expense of American interests. In some cases, these narratives are accompanied by antisemitic claims regarding disproportionate Jewish or Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy.
In contrast, the Republican Party leadership, prominent figures in conservative media, and pro-Trump influencers justify the intervention, presenting it as a necessary deterrent against Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional activities. These divisions can be understood through three primary ideological layers on the American Right:
The MAGA Camp (Make America Great Again): More closely identified with support for assertive foreign policy and maintaining the alliance with Israel.
The "America First" Stream: Expresses a populist, anti-establishment view emphasizing domestic priorities and opposition to prolonged military involvement.
The "America Only" Stream: Represents a more radical isolationist approach, sometimes incorporating white nationalist, conspiratorial, and antisemitic rhetoric.
Across all these streams, online influencers and alternative media networks play a central role in shaping the discourse, particularly among younger audiences, by amplifying anti-war messages and framing the conflict as inconsistent with American interests.
Current polls and political discourse indicate that Republican support for the war remains strong but may be conditional. While voters identified with MAGA and party leadership largely support the campaign, rifts in conservative media and among parts of the Republican leadership suggest that support could weaken if the conflict becomes prolonged, expands operationally, or incurs sustained economic costs.
Growing gap between Republican Party leadership, which supports the campaign against Iran, and a populist-isolationist camp in the US, which is spreading anti-war, anti-Israel, and antisemitic messages.
The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, today (Thursday, 9 April 2026), released a special report that examines American public sentiment regarding the war against Iran (https://www.gov.il/en/pages/epic-fury-us-public-sentiment-analysis-2026-03). The report analyzes its potential impact on the US political system, anti-Israel discourse, and the safety of Jewish communities.
While support for the campaign remains high among the Republican public, an anti-war discourse identified with isolationist currents on the American right, primarily "America First" and "America Only", is intensifying. This discourse does not stop at opposing military involvement; it frequently devolves into narratives such as: "Israel First", "Dying for Israel" and accusations of Israeli or Jewish "control" over US foreign policy.
According to the report (which covers the period up to April 1, 2026), online discourse reflects a sharp polarization: Establishment Leadership, Republican leaders, political officials, and mainstream conservative commentators frame the campaign as an essential necessity to curb the Iranian threat, ensure regional deterrence, and protect US allies. However, prominent figures in the populist and anti-establishment sphere frame the war as a violation of the "no more wars" promise, claiming it fails to serve American interests.
The report highlights a significant surge in anti-war messaging on social media, particularly on X (formerly Twitter). These messages are often accompanied by antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories against Israel including thousands of mentions of terms like "Neocon", “America First” and "Dying for Israel” which attempt to link the war to domestic US political conspiracies.
According to the report, it also appears that while the majority of Republicans currently support action against Iran, this support is not unlimited. As the campaign lengthens, expands, or leads to significant economic costs, the rifts within the Republican camp may deepen, and voices opposing American involvement may grow stronger.
The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism emphasizes that these trends may have direct implications not only for Israel-US relations, but also for the level of risk faced by Jewish and Israeli communities in the United States.
Past experience shows that when anti-Israel narratives are combined with accusations of "dual loyalty," "Jewish control," or "wars for Israel," the path to an increase in antisemitic incidents is particularly short.
Amichai Chikli, Minister of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism:
"The picture emerging from the report is concerning: alongside significant American support for the war against the Iranian terror regime, a discourse is expanding in the U.S. that attempts to present Israel as acting manipulatively, as if it dragged the U.S. into war. This is a dangerous discourse that often devolves from political and diplomatic criticism into conspiratorial rhetoric with a sharp antisemitic aroma. Our role is to identify these trends in time, alert people to them, and act together with our partners to understand deep-seated trends and know how to prepare and respond to them."
Avi Cohen-Scali, Director General of the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism:
"The report emphasizes how much the perceptual arena in the U.S. affects reality on the ground. We identify an increasingly tightening connection between internal political debate in the U.S. and the dissemination of anti-Israel and antisemitic messages online. The National Command Center of the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism continues to monitor developments, analyze the discourse in real-time, and provide updated assessments to relevant parties in Israel and around the world."
The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism notes that heading into this coming November and the U.S. midterm elections, the issue is expected to continue shaping the political discourse on the American Right. They emphasize the need for continued close monitoring of the evolution of narratives, their impact on public opinion, and the potential implications for Israel and American Jewry.
Executive Summary of the Research
The report analyzes Republican positions toward the war with Iran as of March 2026 and assesses how internal U.S. political divisions may influence the conflict's progression. A summary of recent U.S. public opinion polls indicates that approximately half of Americans oppose the war, about a third support it, and a large portion of the public remains uncertain. Opposition to the strikes is most notable among Democrats and Independents, while Republican voters largely support the war. The vast majority of the American public opposes the deployment of U.S. ground troops.
The report reveals rifts within the Republican Party. A stream identified with the "America First" isolationist approach argues that the strikes contradict the anti-war rhetoric of previous campaigns and risk dragging the U.S. into another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict, leading to high economic costs that harm domestic interests. Some actors in this camp also disseminate "Israel First" narratives, alongside messages such as "Dying for Israel," which frame the war as serving Israeli or foreign interests at the expense of American interests. In some cases, these narratives are accompanied by antisemitic claims regarding disproportionate Jewish or Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy.
In contrast, the Republican Party leadership, prominent figures in conservative media, and pro-Trump influencers justify the intervention, presenting it as a necessary deterrent against Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional activities. These divisions can be understood through three primary ideological layers on the American Right:
The MAGA Camp (Make America Great Again): More closely identified with support for assertive foreign policy and maintaining the alliance with Israel.
The "America First" Stream: Expresses a populist, anti-establishment view emphasizing domestic priorities and opposition to prolonged military involvement.
The "America Only" Stream: Represents a more radical isolationist approach, sometimes incorporating white nationalist, conspiratorial, and antisemitic rhetoric.
Across all these streams, online influencers and alternative media networks play a central role in shaping the discourse, particularly among younger audiences, by amplifying anti-war messages and framing the conflict as inconsistent with American interests.
Current polls and political discourse indicate that Republican support for the war remains strong but may be conditional. While voters identified with MAGA and party leadership largely support the campaign, rifts in conservative media and among parts of the Republican leadership suggest that support could weaken if the conflict becomes prolonged, expands operationally, or incurs sustained economic costs.
