Is the Middle East conflict dividing the AfD? "There's no reason to argue about this war."

The better a party is doing, the less likely it is to engage in political disputes. And recently, things have actually been going quite well for the AfD : There were strong results in the eastern German state elections, a record result at the national level, and polls showing it trailing the CDU/CSU by only a few percentage points. Things have been going so well that the CDU , CSU, and SPD are talking about their last chances, shots, or bullets, before the Blues could soon become the strongest party.

And yet, in this phase, in which it could be enjoying its full impact as the largest opposition force, the AfD is openly wrestling with itself. In addition to the debate surrounding Maximilian Krah, which he initiated with his emphasis on "remigration," a conflict is now brewing over its stance on Israel —on the escalation in the Middle East, and on the regime in Iran. It seems paradoxical: In a moment of strength, the AfD is revealing its weaknesses.

As in October 2023, just days after Hamas's terrorist attack on Israel, it was once again Tino Chrupalla who sparked the debate. At that time, the co-chairman lamented "all the war dead" and wrote of diplomacy as the "necessity of the hour." This met with significant resistance within the party, especially in the Bundestag parliamentary group, since Hamas had just fired the first rockets at Israeli cities. Why should an attacked state negotiate with Islamist terrorists?

So now it's Chrupalla again. Once again, he chose Platform X to explain his view of events in the Middle East. After Israel began shelling Iranian nuclear facilities and military bases, he wrote: "The fuse has been lit in the powder keg of the Middle East." A war in the region, he said, is not in Germany's interest. "I condemn the attacks and call on those involved to exercise restraint!"

The party leader's assertiveness in positioning himself has caused considerable irritation within the AfD. Some leading officials were reportedly upset. For outsiders—especially voters—the chairman's word is synonymous with the party line. The Bild newspaper headlined: "AfD, BSW, and Left Party united against Israel." Yet the AfD's position is far less clear than that of Wagenknecht's party, for example.

Bavarian AfD member of the Bundestag Rainer Kraft vehemently contradicted his party leader. "I think it's incredibly naive to believe that we simply need more diplomacy," he told the portal The Pioneer. Iran has no peaceful intentions; only force or economic pressure will help. "I also expect this basic diplomatic understanding from my party leadership."

Roughly speaking, there are three camps within the AfD regarding Middle East policy: One stands loyally by Israel's side, whether out of historical responsibility or its rejection of Islam. Prominent representatives include MP Beatrix von Storch and honorary chairman Alexander Gauland. Another, opposing camp calls for peace to all sides, sees Israel as the aggressor, and spares the regime in Tehran. Like Chrupalla, there is a third group that would prefer to keep their party out of the Middle East debate. Thuringian AfD leader Björn Höcke expressed this view.

AfD politician Lucassen: Should reject “compulsory confession”

The size of these camps is difficult to quantify. In fact, the opposing poles "pro" and "contra" Israel are likely relatively small groups, but they can be quite vocal. Behind the conflict lie not only ideological motives, but also strategic ones aimed at attracting potential voters.

It's certainly no coincidence that it's primarily West German AfD politicians who oppose Chrupalla, the party leader from Saxony: For example, the Lower Saxony state chairman Ansgar Schledde, who wrote on X about a "wake-up call for the mullahs in Tehran" and "Islamofascism." "I therefore fully support Israel's decisive action – a strong signal against Islamist aggression!" Or his state parliament colleague Vanessa Behrendt. She condemned the "terrorist regime in Iran" that oppresses its people while Israel defends the Western world.

They also posted social media tiles depicting themselves in front of the flags of Israel and Germany. Both were likely aware of how their posts would be interpreted—as a direct reaction to Chrupalla's words, even though they didn't mention him. Someone wanted to publicly take the opposing position.

Some party members therefore speak of an East-West conflict, which has already become apparent in other foreign policy issues. In the West German state associations, not only Middle East policy is a concern, but also disillusioned conservative CDU voters – and anti-Israel positions simply don't help in this regard. Solidarity with Israel, they argue, is closely linked to West German conservatism. Meanwhile, Chrupalla and his supporters are alienated from Western powers: be it the US or Israel.

The internal dispute, which is being played out in full view on social media, is causing confusion within the party, especially among those who consider geopolitical issues secondary. Thuringian AfD leader Höcke isn't the only one who believes the AfD "doesn't have to provide solutions for conflicts in distant countries" – after all, it doesn't govern, Höcke wrote on X. "There's no reason for the AfD to be divided over this war," Bundestag member Rüdiger Lucassen also told the Berliner Zeitung. "We are at most observers, not active players."

As with many other issues, the party should reject "forced confession" here, says the defense policy spokesperson. "We repeatedly emphasize our commitment to an 'interest-driven foreign policy' and the principle of 'non-interference in the affairs of foreign states.' Now is a good time to act accordingly."

On Wednesday evening, AfD co-chair Alice Weidel finally commented on the situation in the Middle East. She had remained silent for a long time, almost a week. She had often been reserved on foreign policy issues in the past. Now, the AfD press office published a joint statement by the two party leaders, expressing their concerns about the escalation, which also threatens the security of Germany, Europe, and the entire world. "Actively contributing to the war is not in the interest of Germany and Europe. We call on the warring parties to exercise restraint and hope that the US will not have to enter the war."

European politicians must "protect their citizens from the negative effects of the Middle East conflict, such as migration movements or attacks, and contribute diplomatically to peacemaking," the statement reads. It is clearly an attempt to emphasize the potential consequences of this conflict for Germany. Apparently a compromise. Meanwhile, the position of the staunch supporters of Israel does not appear to have a majority in the party leadership.