Since the commencement of Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026, a wide range of groups and figures from the American far-left and far-right have spoken out in stark opposition to the joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign to eliminate the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missiles. Although these actors emerge from distinct ideological traditions, they have converged around a common narrative frame. That convergence, in turn, has been echoed and reinforced by Iranian regime officials, Iranian state media, and other adversarial outlets seeking to weaken support for the campaign and deepen divisions inside the United States.
Converging Domestic Ecosystems
Only days after the operation was launched, Tucker Carlson declared on his March 2, 2026 podcast that “This is Israel’s war. This is not the United States’ war.” By March 3, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was echoing much the same narrative, asserting that the United States had entered “a war of choice on behalf of Israel” and casting the conflict as one driven by “Israel Firsters.” That same day, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei similarly described the war as part of “the project of the Zionist regime” and said that “the United States was also drawn onto this path.”
A parallel pattern emerged on the American far left. Activist organizations such as Code Pink, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), and the ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) hastily mobilized thousands of “anti-war” protesters in Washington, D.C., just as the operation began unfolding. Large crowds in multiple states returned to the streets on March 13, 2026, for Al-Quds Day (“Jerusalem Day”), an annual anti-Israel day of protest originally established by Ayatollah Khomeini on August 7, 1979, following the Islamic Revolution.
These reactions did not originate from a single ideological camp. Rather, they reflect two separate but increasingly overlapping ecosystems. One comprises ideologues such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, who have broadly embraced a current in American politics associated with right-wing populism, isolationism, and conspiracism, often under the slogan of “America First.” The other consists of two overlapping cohorts: a network of far-left groups identifying as Marxist, communist, or socialist, and a broader set of groups advancing “pro-Palestine” ideology. The relationship between these tendencies is sometimes described as the “red–green ” alliance.
Despite their ideological differences, these ecosystems have substantially converged in their opposition to the military operation and in their hostility toward Israel. In practice, they function as nodes in a wider information war aimed at weakening the U.S.-Israel relationship, preserving the Iranian regime, and contributing to greater instability inside the United States.
Foreign Amplification of American Narratives
This dynamic does not end at the domestic U.S. level. Rather, anti-war messages favorable to the Iranian regime, once promoted by political extremes inside the United States, are then amplified by Iranian state media and other American adversaries, including Russia. The result is a reciprocal feedback loop in which domestic fringe narratives and foreign propaganda reinforce one another.
One of the clearest examples is the repeated amplification of Tucker Carlson’s anti-war commentary by both Russian and Iranian state media. Press TV, an Iranian state media outlet sanctioned by the United States and operating as the English-language channel of IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting), has prominently featured Carlson’s statements regarding the ongoing operation, often foregrounding conspiratorial claims or statements later challenged or contradicted.
These included baseless statements from Carlson suggesting that Israel might intentionally destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque and blame Iran in order to ignite a religious war and construct the Third Temple. Another clip amplified by Press TV featured Carlson claiming that Qatari and Saudi authorities had arrested “Mossad agents” planning bombings in Gulf countries. He further claimed that “Israel wants to hurt Iran, and Qatar, and the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, and Oman and Kuwait.”
Those claims were later dismissed by Qatar, which said it had “no information” about alleged Mossad activity in the country. By contrast, Qatar announced that it had arrested two cells operating on behalf of the IRGC, while Kuwait and the UAE also reported action against Hezbollah cells active in their countries.
Carlson’s remarks have also circulated through the broader pro-“Axis of Resistance” media apparatus and Russian state media. For example, Al-Mayadeen TV, a Lebanese pro-Hezbollah outlet, shared Carlson’s statement claiming that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was preparing a “crime report” for the Department of Justice (DOJ) based on his communications with the Iranian government prior to the start of Operation Epic Fury.
Candace Owens, another prominent figure on the American far-right, also entered this ecosystem, as a clip of her was reportedly circulated in an IRGC-linked Telegram channel and translated into Persian. In the clip, Owens accused Israel of manufacturing the pretext for the war with Iran and argued that Donald Trump had betrayed his American supporters.
Additional examples from the American right reinforce the same pattern. Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene shared footage of airstrikes in Tehran published by the Turkish-based outlet Clash Report, writing: “Imagine murdering countless innocent people in a foreign country and expecting them to be grateful you freed them from their government.” Greene’s statement was later shared by Russia Today (RT), illustrating once again how anti-war narratives originating with American political figures can be repurposed by foreign, state-linked outlets.
Russia Today also amplified a clip of Carlson speaking with American journalist Glenn Greenwald, in which Carlson, referring to Israel, argued that “if you can’t criticize a foreign country, then that country is in charge.”
This pattern has not been limited to right-wing commentary. From the American far-left, opposition to the Iran war has largely been framed as a rejection of “imperialism” and as an extension of opposition to Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, which activists describe as a “genocide.” On the day the war was announced, Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) published a statement declaring that “Trump is acting on the violent fantasies of the American political elite and the Israeli apartheid government, ignoring the vast majority of Americans who say loud and clear: No More Wars.”
That framing was later echoed by Press TV coverage of anti-war protests in the United States, which highlighted both Tlaib’s condemnation of the operation and the wider mobilization of far-left and pro-Palestinian groups. Press TV’s X account also featured photos of Al-Quds Day demonstrators in New York openly displaying images of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and Hezbollah flags. In this way, anti-war rhetoric and protest activity originating within the American far eft have likewise been repurposed by hostile foreign media as evidence that opposition to the operation and to Israel is growing from within the United States.
Narrative Spillover into Former Officials
The convergence of these narratives has not been confined to activists and media personalities. It has also extended to figures who have held senior national security positions in the U.S. government.
A notable example was the resignation of Joe Kent, the National Counterterrorism Center director under the Trump administration. In his resignation letter, Kent asserted that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
Shortly after resigning, Kent appeared as a guest on Carlson’s podcast, where he advanced conspiratorial ideas suggesting Israel’s potential involvement in the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Segments from the interview were then amplified by Press TV, including Kent’s claim that “the Israelis drove the decision” for the United States to take military action against Iran, and were broadcast live on IRIB news.
Joe Kent also appeared on Piers Morgan’s program, where he suggested that certain individuals may have had prior knowledge of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, further lending credence to conspiratorial narratives surrounding Kirk’s death.
Strategic Implications
The strategic significance of this dynamic lies in the fact that these narratives are not being pushed only by Iranian regime propagandists. They are also being voiced by American political actors whose words carry greater credibility and reach inside the United States.
At times, Iranian state media directly amplify the statements, clips, and social media commentary of actors from America’s political extremes. At other times, the process works through domestic mobilization and broader narrative convergence, with American extremists and Iranian regime actors advancing many of the same themes even when they are not directly coordinating with one another.
This creates fractures that U.S. adversaries can readily exploit. On the right, those fractures include divisions between mainstream conservatives and more radical nationalist or conspiracist elements. On the left, the picture is more complex. It includes not only divisions between mainstream liberal or progressive politics and the far left, but also divergences among the groups and currents aligned with “anti-war” messaging.
The “red” camp has been more consistently aligned around a narrative of anti-war and anti-imperialism. The “green” camp, by contrast, is shaped by a more complicated set of regional loyalties and interests. Hamas’s response to Iran’s strike on Qatar illustrates this distinction. Even as it affirmed Iran’s right to retaliate against Israel and the United States, it also urged Tehran not to target neighboring states. Given Hamas’s role as an ideological reference point within parts of the broader pro-Palestinian milieu, this suggests that the “green” camp has not been uniform in its response to the war.
The result is similar in either case: the rationale for the campaign is blurred, support for theU.S. –Israel alliance is weakened, and domestic polarization is intensified during wartime. Operation Epic Fury is therefore being contested not only through military force, but also through a reciprocal information struggle in which America’s political extremes have become useful instruments of adversarial messaging.
For Israel, the United States, and their Western allies, the implication is clear. The information environment must be treated as a central theater of conflict from the outset. It cannot be treated as secondary to the physical battle or dealt with only after hostile narratives are already circulating. The ongoing information war, including opposition to the operation from political extremes in the United States, appears to have elicited a White House response focused mainly on issuing reactive statements in defense of the operation. These have included highlighting support from lawmakers and experts, pushing back on critical coverage, and reinforcing the operation’s stated objectives.
Just as Israel and the United States launched a joint military campaign, they should also mount a joint and overt effort to track, expose, and actively counter converging adversarial information operations. This should include publicly highlighting how Iran, Russia, and China overlap in their efforts to shape the information environment surrounding the war.
That effort should be carried out in coordination with Western allies and across social media platforms. It should be proactive, not merely reactive. It should include earlier attribution of hostile influence activity and more systematic public exposure of bots, coordinated networks, proxy outlets, and aligned state media. It should also be transparent and public-facing, rather than confined primarily to behind-the-scenes or covert activity. Nor can it be left to fragmented press responses alone or treated as something to be handled only by a spokesperson. It should be overseen at a senior level and bring together expertise in intelligence, media, communications, and technology.
This is a lesson for future conflicts as well. Success will be shaped not only by what happens on the battlefield, but by whether Western nations are able to contest and manage the information environment from the early stages of a conflict and in parallel with the physical battle.
JISS Policy Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
