Bannon Warns of U.S. Fallout if Trump Enters Iran-Israel War — But Says MAGA Base Will Ultimately Back Him

By:  Fern Sidman

As tensions surge in the Middle East, former White House strategist and MAGA icon Steve Bannon delivered a blunt and revealing assessment of how Donald Trump’s core supporters might respond should the nation’s 47th president decide to plunge the United States into direct conflict with Iran. Speaking candidly at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Wednesday, Bannon warned that another Middle East war would “tear this country apart” — but predicted that the vast majority of Trump loyalists would ultimately “get on board” with whatever course of action their leader chooses.

According to a report on Wednesday in The New York Post, Bannon — who remains a dominant voice within the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement through his influential “War Room” broadcast — framed his commentary as both a personal caution and a political reality. “I know, and particularly his skills as a communicator, that he will come and walk people through it,” Bannon said of Trump. “The MAGA movement — there’ll be some [who disagree], but the vast majority… will go, ‘Look. We trust your judgment.’”

Despite his loyalty, Bannon made it clear he remains firmly opposed to U.S. involvement in what has become an intensifying confrontation between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The New York Post reported that Bannon has been among a small but vocal group of conservative influencers urging restraint, warning that any new military entanglement in the region risks becoming a repeat of the Iraq War — a debacle that shattered bipartisan trust in American interventionism for a generation.

“We can’t have another Iraq,” Bannon said, according to The New York Post. He emphasized that Israel’s current military posture — with overwhelming technological advantages and sustained air dominance — should be sufficient to achieve its goals without U.S. troop involvement. “They have total air superiority. In fact, I would say they have air supremacy. They have to finish what they started,” Bannon added. “There’s no hurry to rush for the United States.”

His remarks came just hours after Trump, flanked by American flags on the White House lawn, refused to confirm or deny whether he had decided to authorize U.S. strikes on Iranian targets. “I may do it, I may not do it,” Trump told reporters cryptically, as quoted by The New York Post. He noted that while nothing had yet been finalized, “the next week is going to be very big — maybe less than a week.”

Trump’s ambiguity has left analysts and allies alike guessing as to how far the U.S. might go in support of Israel’s campaign, which has already included deep-penetration airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and the assassinations of top IRGC officials and scientists.

Iran has warned that direct U.S. military intervention would trigger an “all-out war.” In the face of that threat, Trump has maintained a defiant posture. “Iran’s got a lot of trouble,” he said this week, insisting that it’s still not “too late” for Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

While Bannon stopped short of endorsing U.S. military action, he did not question Trump’s leadership — a critical distinction that underscores the personal bond Trump has cultivated with his base. The New York Post report highlighted Bannon’s dual message: a clear opposition to war paired with absolute faith in Trump’s judgment.

“He’s one of the few politicians in history who could take a movement that overwhelmingly doesn’t want another war in the Middle East, explain it, and still have their support,” Bannon suggested.

This paradox — deep grassroots resistance to foreign military intervention, coupled with near-total allegiance to Trump — represents a defining feature of the MAGA political engine. As The New York Post has often chronicled, it is a movement driven less by ideological consistency than by trust in Trump’s instincts and charisma.

Still, Bannon’s remarks also reflect rising unease among some on the America First right. With Trump reportedly considering authorizing the use of 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs, and U.S. military planners quietly readying regional assets, the line between rhetorical deterrence and full-scale engagement may be thinner than many realize. According to the information provided in The New York Post report, the administration is reviewing contingency plans for strikes that would complement — not substitute — Israeli operations against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Trump, for his part, has framed any future decision in terms of national security and global stability. Yet, as The New York Post report noted, he remains aware of the domestic political implications. A new war, however limited in scope, would test his base’s unity — especially after two decades of fatigue and disillusionment following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, Bannon remains convinced that should Trump choose the path of war, his people will follow. “We don’t like it. In fact, maybe we hate it,” he said. “But… we’ll get on board.”

As the world watches and waits, The New York Post report indicated that the coming days may prove to be among the most consequential of Trump’s presidency — not only for the Middle East, but for the very soul of the movement he built.