The Manosphere Is at War With Itself Over Israel's Strike on Iran

Gizmodo

2 days ago

From the outside, the manosphere often appears monolithic: a band of hyper-online masculinity influencers united in their war against feminism, political correctness, and what they see as the softening of Western civilization. Whether it's red-pillers, tradCons, incels, nationalists, or so-called alpha gurus, their message is usually loud, synchronized, and singular.
But beneath the surface, the ecosystem is messy and fragmented. These men can't even agree on what a 'true alpha' is, other than to claim, for self-serving and brand-conscious reasons, that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are the ideal masculine archetypes.
Now, a geopolitical crisis has cracked the whole thing wide open.
For months, speculation swirled that Israel would launch a preventive strike on Iran. Inside the manosphere, this prospect was a source of simmering tension. Some influencers warned of a coming World War 3. Others tried to keep their feeds focused on fitness, feminism, and Western decline. But when Israel launched a large-scale airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities late Thursday night, June 12, the fallout across the online masculinity space was immediate and brutal.
The strike has exposed a bitter ideological rift. On one side are those rallying behind Israel, defending what they see as the values of Western civilization and Judeo-Christian supremacy. On the other flank are anti-interventionists, neo-traditionalists, and Muslim influencers who either support Iran or reject the idea of U.S. involvement in yet another Middle East conflict. What's unfolding is an identity crisis for a movement built on certainty and dominance.
Ben Shapiro, co-founder of The Daily Wire, is leading the charge on the pro-Israel front. A longtime vocal supporter of Israel, Shapiro went live on YouTube shortly after the strike, streaming for over an hour to explain 'Why Israel was 100% right to do it.' His post on X and Daily Wire's live feed have been viewed by hundreds of thousands of users. Shapiro, who is Jewish, has since flooded his feed with support for Israel and shared any coverage that reinforces the idea that Trump and other global powers are backing the attack. To his 7.8 million followers, the message is clear: Israel isn't alone.
But while Shapiro affirms Israel's role in defending the West, most of the manosphere's power players are sounding the alarm, and they are not on his side.
Tucker Carlson, with 16.3 million followers on X, used his newsletter to blast the Trump administration's response, particularly that of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio said the U.S. was not involved in the attack, a claim Carlson flatly rejects. 'The U.S. says it was 'not involved.' That's not true,' Carlson wrote on June 13. 'This could be the final newsletter before an all-out war.' He warned that Iran's threat to retaliate will escalate and that American citizens may be the ones paying the price.
Charlie Kirk echoed the warning. With 5 million followers, Kirk warned that Iran could strike American military bases more easily than Israeli targets and argued that involvement in this conflict would be catastrophic. 'Dragging America into this war might be irrational and suicidal,' he wrote, comparing the situation to Ukraine. 'In any drawn-out war with Iran, America loses—even if we win.'
Andrew Tate, the controversial influencer and recent Muslim convert, took a more ironic route. He reposted a thread skewering the language used to defend Israeli military actions. The post satirically lists 'rules' for discussing Israeli wars, including: 'Rule 1: Israel is never the aggressor' and 'Rule 14: The U.S. government has never lied about anything, ever.' Here's the thread he reposted.
Myron Gaines, a fellow Muslim and co-host of Fresh & Fit, was more direct. 'I hope Trump doesn't make the same mistake Bush did and tarnish his legacy with more foreign wars in the Middle East that do NOTHING for the United States,' he wrote.
Just hours before the strike, Matt Walsh, another Daily Wire personality, warned his 5 million followers that Iran poses no credible threat to the U.S. 'We do not need to get involved in yet another war in the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with defending our own nation,' he declared to his 3.7 million followers on X. ​​
The fallout is even more complex because many of these figures are stalwart Trump supporters. Now, they find themselves in opposition to Trump's foreign policy, or at least to the narratives being pushed by those closest to him. It's a splintering that no one in the movement seems to know how to manage.
The divide is between entire ideological tribes that make up the masculinity ecosystem. The Christian nationalists find themselves at odds with pro-Muslim influencers. The Western traditionalists now clash with isolationist libertarians. The common ground that once united them—feminism bad, Trump good—is no longer enough.
More fringe figures, like Nick Fuentes, are also weighing in, using the moment to amplify their openly anti-Israel stance.
This rift matters. If Israel's strike escalates into a wider conflict, or if U.S. troops are drawn in, the fracture in the manosphere may become permanent. Influencers who have built empires on the illusion of ideological clarity are being forced to confront contradictions they'd rather ignore. Christian nationalists are struggling to square support for Israel with growing resentment among their base. Muslim influencers can no longer co-sign Western dominance while denouncing Western intervention. And libertarians are finding themselves surrounded by warhawks in their own movement.
This is a test of what the manosphere really stands for when the stakes are higher than culture wars. What began as a fight about masculinity is now a battle over war, empire, and whose lives are worth defending. The grift is straining. The alliances are buckling. And no matter who wins this war, the brand may never be the same.