For decades, the idea that Iran\u2019s regime represented the worst of the world\u2019s worst stood as a pillar of Republican foreign policy.<\/p>\n
But in recent months, and especially as the Trump administration has defended its preliminary peace deal, a different perspective has been taking hold in parts of the American right: Iran as a pragmatic country that the United States can, and must, learn to live with.<\/p>\n
The stark shift has been led by President Trump, who called Iran\u2019s leaders \u201cstrong people, smart people\u201d last week, but it goes well beyond him. Vice President JD Vance has emerged as its main proponent. Conservatives who long had an isolationist streak have been energized. Even some longtime hawks have changed their tone.<\/p>\n
It is too soon to say whether the change will last. Many Republicans have retained their hard-line stance, and Mr. Trump has periodically threatened to restart the war. Some of the shifting language among Republicans could be the familiar Trump-era scramble to stay aligned with a mercurial president.<\/p>\n
But interviews show that the right-wing pivot away from traditional Republican hawkishness on Iran is driven by factors that go beyond Mr. Trump\u2019s desire to disentangle himself from the fighting. There is a generational shift in the party away from uncompromising support for Iran\u2019s archenemy, Israel, and even some grudging admiration for the Iranian regime\u2019s ability to withstand weeks of fierce bombardment.<\/p>\n
It is a domestic political dynamic with global implications \u2014 stakes made plain by the Iran war\u2019s consequences for the energy supply of Europe and Asia and the security of the Arab countries on the Persian Gulf.<\/p>\n
\u201cIran stood up for itself. Good for Iran,\u201d said Curt Mills, the executive director of The American Conservative, channeling what he described as Mr. Trump\u2019s message to Americans. \u201cAnd that means the U.S. is only so interested in taking these guys down a peg.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr. Mills, 35, runs a magazine founded by one of modern conservatism\u2019s original isolationists, Patrick J. Buchanan. He has long endorsed foreign-policy restraint, a view that polls show is shared by many younger Republicans, who came of age during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. \u201cExpressing opposition to fighting Iran on the right is getting less and less taboo,\u201d Mr. Mills said.<\/p>\n
Stephen K. Bannon, the former senior Trump aide, described the president as a \u201cdeal maker and a pragmatist\u201d who now knows \u201che is not having a surrender ceremony on the battleship Missouri<\/a> in the harbor at Bandar Abbas,\u201d the Iranian port. Mr. Bannon evoked ancient Persia\u2019s wars against Greece and Rome to explain Mr. Trump\u2019s struggle to defeat Iran.<\/p>\n \u201cThey go to ground and dig in hard,\u201d Mr. Bannon said in a text message.<\/p>\n Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, said that the Iran war had \u201csuccessfully demolished\u201d much of the country\u2019s military, and that negotiators were now \u201cworking to eliminate Iran\u2019s nuclear capabilities for good.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe president doesn\u2019t make these important national security decisions to appease podcasters or think tank armchair quarterbacks,\u201d Ms. Kelly said. \u201cHis only priority is what is best for the American people.\u201d<\/p>\n But in a sign of the White House being attuned to the shifting politics of Iran, Mr. Vance went on Megyn Kelly\u2019s online show last week to promote the preliminary peace deal. Ms. Kelly, a former Fox News host, has four million YouTube subscribers and has become a voice for Republicans disenchanted by Mr. Trump\u2019s foreign policy.<\/p>\n The hawks are \u201coperating under an outdated view of the world and of the American attitude and capability,\u201d Ms. Kelly said on her show<\/a> two days after speaking with Mr. Vance, adding: \u201cThe Iranians are not going to bend. They did well in this war.\u201d<\/p>\n That prior view of the world may have been captured in President George W. Bush\u2019s 2002 State of the Union address<\/a>. Iran was part of an \u201caxis of evil\u201d; for the United States, it was \u201cboth our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom\u2019s fight.\u201d As he launched the war on Feb. 28, Mr. Trump himself had called the Iranian government \u201cvery hard, terrible people\u201d who \u201cwanted to practice evil.\u201d<\/p>\n Echoing that view, Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, said on his podcast last week<\/a> that Mr. Trump was now \u201cgetting very poor advice\u201d on Iran because \u201cgiving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics\u201d is \u201ca very, very bad idea.\u201d Senator Tim Sheehy, Republican of Montana, said on \u201cFox & Friends\u201d<\/a> that Iran\u2019s leaders still \u201cwant you and I dead.\u201d<\/p>\n But even in the Senate, a bastion for conservative hawks, a change in tone is palpable.<\/p>\n Senator Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican who said in April that negotiating with \u201cirrational religious zealots\u201d in Tehran was \u201cnext to impossible,\u201d argued on CNN<\/a> this month that Iran could be allowed to possess missiles because \u201cthey have to be able to defend themselves.\u201d On \u201cThe Brian Kilmeade Show\u201d on Fox Radio, he said he did not want to sound like \u201can Iran apologist.\u201d But he repeated the mantra \u201cno forever wars\u201d in arguing why the United States should negotiate its way out of the war.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve already lost 13 American soldiers, basically defending Israel for the most part, and getting rid of nuclear weapons,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Such shifts in language may in part be driven by conservative politicians picking up on a generational change in how their potential voters see America\u2019s place in the world.<\/p>\n