A month into the ongoing joint military campaign between the United States and Israel against Iran, significant ideological rifts have emerged within American conservative circles. The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Texas served as a revealing platform where attendees expressed conflicting viewpoints regarding Operation Epic Fury, initiated on February 28th.
The military operation, characterized by its unprecedented coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv, has sparked intense debate among conservative thought leaders. While some conference participants voiced strong support for the aggressive stance against Iranian targets, others demonstrated notable reservations about the campaign’s strategic objectives and potential long-term consequences.
This division highlights the evolving nature of conservative foreign policy philosophy in the post-Trump era. The spectrum of opinions ranges from hawkish advocates who emphasize national security imperatives to more cautious voices concerned about mission creep and regional destabilization. These internal disagreements reflect broader tensions within the conservative movement regarding America’s role in Middle Eastern conflicts and the appropriate application of military power.
The conference discussions revealed particularly nuanced positions on the timing, execution, and geopolitical implications of the operation, suggesting that conservative consensus on foreign interventionism may be undergoing significant redefinition.