Hold the phone, folks—Steve Bannon just threw a curveball at President Trump’s tough talk on Iran, likening it to a page from Hillary Clinton’s old script.
According to The Hill, on January 2, 2026, the former White House adviser voiced sharp criticism on his “War Room” podcast alongside CDM Editor-in-Chief Todd Wood, blasting Trump’s threat to step in if Iran cracks down on protesters as reminiscent of Clinton’s hawkish rhetoric, while Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene also pushed back, urging a focus on domestic priorities over foreign entanglements.
Let’s set the stage: earlier that day, Trump took to Truth Social, vowing that the U.S. would come to the aid of Iranian demonstrators if the regime resorted to deadly violence against them.
This comes as Iran faces some of its most significant protests since 2022, with reports emerging just a day prior, on January 1, 2026, from the Hengaw Organization for Human Rights noting at least 29 detentions.
Adding to the grim toll, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency disclosed that three protesters lost their lives and 17 sustained injuries during a violent clash at a police station.
Bannon, never one to mince words, fired off on his podcast, saying, “Aren’t people teasing right now that Samantha Power and Hillary Clinton must somehow have gotten invited to the Mar-a-Lago New Year’s Eve celebration?”
While that jab carries a smirk, it’s a pointed reminder that tough posturing abroad—especially when it mirrors the interventionist playbook of figures like Clinton and Samantha Power, who held key roles from 2013 to 2025 in U.S. foreign policy—can stray from the America-first focus many conservatives crave. Bannon didn’t stop there, urging a different tack by reinforcing sanctions on Iran to let economic woes internally dismantle the ruling clerics without direct U.S. muscle.
He argued, “Let the mullahs try to run the economy as they’re running it because they don’t know what they’re doing. The economy will crash, and the Persian people will overthrow these guys just like they overthrew the shah.”
That’s a strategy worth mulling—why risk American resources when patience and pressure might let Iran’s own citizens drive change, avoiding the messy entanglements that progressive war hawks often champion?
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), soon departing Congress after a rift with Trump, echoed this sentiment, stressing that U.S. efforts should zero in on domestic needs over overseas conflicts.
Greene’s stance, opposing what she sees as a betrayal of 2024 voter priorities, underscores a broader conservative unease with foreign meddling that doesn’t directly secure American interests.
Bannon’s critique harkens back to Clinton’s stern warnings during her 2008 and 2016 presidential runs, where she spoke of drastic military measures if Iran pursued nuclear ambitions or threatened allies like Israel.
Then-Sen. Barack Obama even called out her 2008 language as unhelpful saber-rattling, a point that resonates now as conservatives question if Trump’s current tone risks the same pitfalls.
Ultimately, with Iran’s streets simmering and the U.S. at a policy crossroads, the debate between intervention and restraint—between echoing past establishment threats or forging a sanctions-driven path—reminds us that America’s strength lies in prioritizing its own backyard first, not in playing global cop at the first sign of unrest.