Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley all-but destroyed her political career when she dragged out a quixotic challenge to Donald Trump in the 2024 GOP Primary race.
Now Haley has just done something unthinkable.
And Nikki Haley just blindsided everyone with this message to Trump that dropped jaws.
A top shehawk calls for restraint
If you thought you’d never see the day when Nikki Haley would counsel against military intervention, think again.
The woman who never met a war she didn’t like just delivered a surprising message to Donald Trump.
She is pumping the brakes on calls for regime change in Iran.
The former South Carolina Governor, presidential candidate, and UN Ambassador shocked the political world when she posted a message on X that sounded more like Rand Paul than the woman who ran against Trump specifically to oppose the America First foreign policy he campaigned on.
"The US should not engage in regime change in Iran," Haley wrote on X. "Our focus should only be on our national security."
Coming from the woman who has been one of the most vocal advocates for aggressive foreign policy, this statement sent shockwaves through Washington, D.C.
Haley’s post continued with what appeared to be a more traditional hawkish position, but even that contained a crucial limitation.
"The Iranian regime has threatened the US with nuclear production for years. We should support Israel in eliminating the Natanz and Fordo sites to prevent the threat of an atomic bomb used against us," she added.
But then came the kicker that nobody saw coming from the former Ambassador.
"The Iranian people should decide who they want to be their leader. That’s their decision, not ours. Stay focused," Haley concluded.
Conservative activists celebrate unexpected ally
The reaction from America First conservatives was swift and positive.
Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, quote-tweeted Haley’s post with an encouraging message: "Keep the pressure up. Regime change in Iran would be a catastrophe."
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1935318984452112511
Kirk’s response highlighted just how unusual this moment is in American politics.
When conservative activists are praising Nikki Haley for restraint on foreign policy, you know the political landscape has shifted dramatically.
The pressure Kirk referenced appears to be working, as even one of the most hawkish voices in the Republican Party is now acknowledging the dangers of regime change operations.
Haley’s remarks seemingly represent a stark contrast to the RINO foreign policy establishment led by the likes of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham – which, with Graham up for reelection next year, ultimately may be the real reason she made them.
The reality behind Haley’s "support Israel" position
While Haley’s statement appears to support limited U.S. role for an Israeli action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the military reality tells a different story.
As Newsweek’s Ellie Cook recently reported, "Located deep below a mountain, Iran’s Fordow nuclear site was always going to be a tough target for Israel. Israeli weapons would struggle to reach it—but the U.S.’s arsenal can."
The report makes clear that destroying these facilities would require American military capabilities that Israel simply doesn’t possess.
"American B-2 Spirit bombers, equipped with one of the world’s heaviest non-nuclear bombs, are thought to be the only aircraft-and-bomb pairing able to destroy a target like the nuclear plant at Fordow," Cook explained.
The weapon of choice would be "the 30,000 pound GBU-57/B bunker buster, also known as the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP)."
This means that to "support Israel in eliminating the Natanz and Fordo sites" would effectively require direct U.S. military action – the very kind of involvement that leads to regime change whether intended or not.
In essence, Haley’s position walks a tightrope attempting to appear to support limits on U.S. involvement in regime change in Tehran, but former Boeing board member likely fully understands what planes and munitions would be needed to take out sites like Fordo, and where a power vacuum inside Iran that will follow would ultimately lead.
Conservative base revolts against new forever war
While Haley’s motives are murky at best, the pressure that Kirk referenced is very clear and very real.
Matt Walsh, the popular conservative commentator, added his voice to the chorus opposing military intervention in Iran.
“Anyone who claims that the majority of conservative voters want the United States to fight a regime change war in the Middle East is insane or lying. You might as well claim that the majority want open borders and carbon taxes. Just total lunacy. The exact opposite of the reality,” the Daily Wire host wrote in a post to X.
https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1935322486406521276“>https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1935322486406521276
The growing backlash from Trump’s base has been impossible to ignore, with America First activists making it clear that they didn’t elect Trump to start new wars in the Middle East.
Former Trump White House and campaign officials have also appeared on Fox News expressing concerns about the administration’s Iran policy.
“History repeats itself. The American people gave President Trump his 7 swing state victory & mandate so that it wouldn’t.,” Caroline Sunshine, the Deputy Communications Director for Trump’s 2024 campaign said on Fox News.
“[A]ll of the voices who were wrong about the Iraq War & wrong about every major foreign policy issue of the last 25 years are going on TV screaming unsubstantiated claims that Iran is 5 min away from an operational nuclear weapon. They’ve been saying that for 30 years. The New York Times has been saying it since 1995. It’s an unsubstantiated claim – just like the ‘Iraq has WMDs, we have to invade now’ lie used to sell the costly Iraq War. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a soldier herself who deployed to combat in the Iraq War, said under oath as recently as March 2025 that the U.S Intelligence assessment is Iran is not close to a nuclear weapon. She has not publicly changed that assessment & has no incentive to lie,” Sunshine, who also served as a White House staffer in Trump’s first term, continued.
https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1935047044714135684“>https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1935047044714135684
This groundswell of opposition from his core supporters appears to be having an impact on President Trump’s approach to the Iran situation.
Trump reveals Iran’s diplomatic outreach
The pressure from conservatives may be working, as Trump revealed that Iran has been reaching out for talks.
In a surprising development, Trump disclosed that Iran had approached the United States about potential negotiations.
"Iran suggested they come to the White House for talks," Trump told reporters Wednesday morning,.
The President acknowledged the timing challenges but didn’t completely shut the door on diplomacy.
"I said it’s very late to be talking. There’s a big difference between now and a week ago," Trump explained.
"They even suggested they come to the White House. That’s courageous, but you know, it’s not like easy for them to do," he added.
This revelation suggests that despite the escalating tensions, diplomatic channels remain open between Washington, D.C. and Tehran.
A political realignment in real time
The days when neoconservatives could count on automatic support for military intervention from the GOP base appear to be over.
The America First movement that elected Trump has fundamentally changed the political calculus around foreign wars.
Even politicians like Haley, who built their careers on hawkish foreign policy positions, are now at least tacitly acknowledging the dangers of regime change operations.
This represents a victory for constitutional conservatives who have long argued that Congress should have a greater role in decisions about war and peace.
Trump’s handling of the Iran situation has become a test case for whether the America First movement can successfully constrain the RINO foreign policy establishment.
Conservative activists who have spent years arguing against endless wars are finally seeing their message break through to mainstream Republican politicians.
This doesn’t mean that actual threats to American security should be ignored, but it does mean that the threshold for military action should be much higher than it has been in the past.
The Iran situation will likely determine whether Trump’s second term focuses on the domestic agenda that his supporters voted for, or gets bogged down in another Middle East conflict.
