War Betrays MAGA

Nation First warns another regime-change war could shatter the MAGA promise and drag the West into a new quagmire.

Dear friend,

There are moments in politics when loyalty is tested.

With Donald Trump launching a regime-change campaign against Iran in coordination with Israel, we are staring at one of those moments.

---

---

---

---

• Trump’s regime-change attack on Iran contradicts the core MAGA promise to end forever wars.

• History shows that bombing Middle Eastern regimes leads to civil war, chaos, and deeper American entanglement.

• This war aligns more closely with Israel’s strategic goals than with America First priorities.

• Anthony Albanese is backing the intervention, raising serious questions about whether Australian troops could be dragged into the aftermath.

• If this turns into another prolonged quagmire, it could fracture the MAGA coalition and end the movement’s ability to reshape Washington.

---

---

Many of us supported Trump because he was the wrecking ball against the neocon order. He mocked the Iraq War. He blasted the “stupid leaders” who bled America dry in endless desert conflicts. He promised no more regime change. No more nation building. No more forever wars. The promise of ending regime change wars was central to MAGA.

Less than a year ago, when Senator Lindsey Graham openly fantasised about toppling Tehran, the late Charlie Kirk fired back with a dose of realism rarely heard in Washington:

Regime change will result in a bloody civil war, killing hundreds of thousands and creating another massive refugee crisis. Topping a leader is never as easy as you think.

That wasn’t left-wing pacifism talking. It was America First realism.

The pattern of forever wars is predictable. The regime is bombed, leadership is decapitated, a power vacuum forms, civil war erupts, extremists rise, and America gets dragged in deeper. We’ve seen this movie before in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. It never ends cleanly.

Israel has wanted Iran neutralised for years. From its perspective, that makes sense. Tehran funds and arms hostile proxies across the region. For Israel, degrading Iran’s power is a strategic imperative. But American foreign policy is not supposed to be subcontracted to another nation’s security doctrine. The interests of the United States are not identical to the interests of Israel. They overlap at times. They diverge at others.

A regional war in the Persian Gulf means American bases under missile threat, oil markets destabilised, U.S. troops pulled into escalation cycles, terror reprisals worldwide, and domestic security stretched thin. It is America drawn into a grinding regional conflict with no clean exit.

Regime change sounds clean on cable news. It never is. Iran is not Libya (and even that intervention by the US has turned to mush, with the aftermath defined by fragmentation, militias, weak institutions, and years of instability rather than the stable outcome that was implied). It is not a fragile, lightly populated desert state. It is a civilisation with 85 million people, deep nationalism, and powerful internal security forces. Bombing it does not automatically produce a Jeffersonian democracy.

More likely outcomes include fragmentation along ethnic lines, Revolutionary Guard factions fighting each other, Islamist hardliners consolidating power, and millions fleeing toward Europe. And once the first American pilot is shot down, or the first U.S. base takes serious casualties, escalation becomes politically inevitable. Wars have momentum. Presidents lose control of them.

Strategic restraint is the point here. A nationalist foreign policy prioritises securing the border, rebuilding industry, crushing fentanyl cartels, deterring China, and protecting American infrastructure. It does not prioritise toppling Middle Eastern governments to reshape the regional balance of power. The American voter who chanted “No more forever wars” did not mean “unless Tel Aviv thinks it’s necessary.”

To see just how upside down this decision is, look at who is cheering it on. In Australia, it is getting support from Anthony Albanese, the very kind of leader many Australians oppose because he reliably aligns with the international establishment consensus. When Albanese is applauding your war, it is a warning light on the dashboard. He took to X yesterday to declare:

We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security.

And the obvious question follows. If this turns into the predictable regime-change mess, with Iran fractured and a quagmire left behind, will Albanese be committing Australian troops to help “stabilise” the aftermath, patrol hostile streets, guard embassies, train whatever faction gets anointed, and mop up the chaos that always follows these interventions?

There is a US domestic political dimension at play here as well. If this turns into a prolonged war, it fractures the coalition that built MAGA in the first place. Working-class voters, veterans, libertarians, populists rallied against the Bush era consensus. They did not sign up for Bush era policy with different branding. A war that looks like it serves foreign priorities over domestic stability could split the movement in ways the establishment would quietly celebrate.

Trump’s MAGA agenda could have possibly continued on in another presidency, likely J.D. Vance, but this attack on Iran could very well spell the end of the movement and its ability to hold on to power in Washington and change things for the better.

Iran’s regime is brutal. It represses dissent. It destabilises its neighbours. No illusions there. But the question is not whether Tehran is virtuous. The question is whether American bombs produce outcomes that make Americans safer. History suggests otherwise.

Regime change is seductive. It promises decisive victory. It delivers prolonged chaos. If this conflict expands, it will not be the think tank class paying the price. It will be American service members, taxpayers, energy consumers, and families watching another generation cycle through the Middle East.

That is not a betrayal of patriotism to say. It is patriotism.

America First cannot become a slogan that dissolves the moment a foreign capital pushes the right buttons. If MAGA meant anything, it meant no more unnecessary wars, no more regime change fantasies, and no more blood for strategic abstractions. The coming weeks will reveal whether that principle still stands, or whether the old interventionist machine has quietly reclaimed the driver’s seat.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

---

---

---

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.