Donald Trump Turns on His First Term's Middle East Hawks
But that doesn't mean he's embracing the doves.

Conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson described former national security adviser John Bolton as a "bureaucratic tapeworm." Bolton, a notorious war hawk, spent much of the first Trump administration trying to prevent diplomacy with North Korea and Iran exactly when Trump was interested in negotiating with those countries. During a June 2019 standoff with Iran that nearly led to war, Carlson complained that Bolton "seems to live forever in the bowels of the federal agencies, periodically reemerging to cause pain and suffering."
But Bolton won't be reemerging from any bowels now, at least not for the next four years. On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order singling out Bolton for condemnation. Because Bolton's decision to publish a tell-all memoir in 2020 "created a grave risk" to national security "for monetary gain," the order says, the administration is revoking "any active or current security clearances" held by Bolton.
The next day, Trump publicly fired Brian Hook, who had been running the State Department transition team, because Hook was "not aligned with our vision to Make America Great Again." During the first Trump administration, Hook helped purge the State Department of officials who were perceived as soft on Syria or insufficiently "friendly to Israel," ran an obsessive campaign to overthrow the Iranian government, and got in the way of U.S.-Iranian hostage negotiations.
The first Trump administration took a highly aggressive line on the Middle East—hiring Bolton and Hook was part of that policy—but his second administration may turn things around. Even before taking office this week, Trump helped broker an Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire and hostage exchange. Although Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had earlier called for a joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign to reshape the region, the Trump administration reportedly refused to commit to bombing Iran and warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to "fuck this [ceasefire] up."
"We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end. And, perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier," Trump said during his inaugural address on Monday. "I'm pleased to say that, as of yesterday, one day before I assumed office, the hostages in the Middle East are coming back home to their families."
Trump is not a principled dove, especially when it comes to the United States' immediate neighbors. He wants to escalate the war on drugs in Mexico into a counterterrorism campaign and has threatened even U.S. treaty allies such as Canada, Denmark, and Panama over territory. Most ominously, his new national security adviser, Mike Waltz, is every bit the hawk Bolton was.
Joel Rayburn, another hawk from the first Trump administration who has been working closely with Hook, is expected to run the State Department's Middle Eastern bureau, reports the Saudi news outlet Al Arabiya. And Trump appointed yet another first administration veteran, Morgan Ortagus, to be deputy special presidential envoy for Middle East peace, along with a cryptic statement: "Early on Morgan fought me for three years, but hopefully has learned her lesson. These things usually don't work out, but she has strong Republican support, and I'm not doing this for me, I'm doing it for them."
A big question mark looms over Trump's relationship with Iran. At his first post-inaugural rally on Monday night, Trump said that Iran was "weakened" and blamed the Iranian government for the October 2023 attacks on Israel. (Leaked documents show that Iran had given vague commitments to help Hamas in a future war with Israel, but the Iranian government seemed blindsided by the timing of the attack.) During the rally, Trump returned to an old theme: that the economic sanctions campaign of Trump's first term left Iran "broke."
The key issue is over Iran's nuclear program. Although Iran hasn't decided to build a nuclear bomb, as far as the U.S. government knows, it has accumulated the materials it needs to build one quickly. And Iranian officials have hinted that the conflict with Israel or additional U.S. pressure might force them to make that decision. Trump, like every U.S. president since George W. Bush, has threatened to attack Iran if it does go for a bomb.
"I am not looking to be enemies with Iran. I would love to get along with them, but they cannot have a nuclear weapon. You just cannot let them have a nuclear weapon," Trump told Fox News in September last year. "If they do have a nuclear weapon, Israel is gone. It will be gone."
Vice President J.D. Vance has also said that "our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran."
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told NBC last week that he "is ready to engage with a second Trump administration," though he "doubts that, even if we engage in negotiations, they are actually seeking to overthrow the Iranian government instead of resolving the issues."
The last time Trump had a chance to meet directly with the Iranian government, Bolton pushed back hard. Mark Dubowitz, head of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a highly influential figure during Trump's first term, is hoping that the new generation of "hawks in the administration could try to block a deal internally by framing it as 'humiliating' or 'embarrassing' to Trump personally," reports the Jewish Insider.
"If the [Vance and Carlson] view trumps the views of people like [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio and Waltz and [Secretary of Defense nominee Pete] Hegseth and others, then you could see there being a deal," Dubowitz told the Insider. "The deal should be avoided at all costs because all it's going to do is put Israel in a much weaker position," he warned.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Donald Trump is wrong about John Bolton!
A "bureaucratic tapeworm" who "seems to live forever in the bowels of the federal agencies, periodically reemerging to cause pain and suffering."
Best description I've ever read of him. Surprised to learn that he is "only" 76, as it seems like this particular parasite has been around forever.
A 46,000 year old parasitic worm was reanimated after being frozen in Siberia a few years back. And it had a mustache.
is there evidence he and Rasputin were ever in the same room?
Trump turned on an America last globalist beauracrat... So what he said he would do
I want to have a cage match with that war mongering POS bolton.
An old fashioned Dusty Roads v Terry Funk cage match. Blood everywhere.
"Get funky like a monkey!"
Most of the people in Donald Trump's first cabinet were dead enders. The only reason they were supporting Trump at all was because their political careers were already over. Certainly, that's the only reason Bolton was around. Trump didn't care what Bolton thought about anything. If you're trying to derive what Trump thought based on the cabinet picks of his first administration, you're barking up the wrong tree.
P.S. Sessions was also in no way indicative of what Trump thought about anything.
In other words, Trump was such a pariah in 2016, that he had very few people to choose from in his cabinet.
Agree on Bolton. Sessions is a weaker case, he may have had a long stint if he had only fought against Russiagate BS. Sessions didn't quite embody MAGA but he also wasn't exactly diametrically opposed either. Sessions wasn't a dead ender, he resigned from office to take the job afterall and was a huge booster for Trump early on.
Sessions was the only one with a future that supported Trump when candidate Trump was running, which is why Sessions became Attorney General. As soon as Sessions tried to reinstate raiding dispensaries in states where it was legal, Trump cut him off at the knees. Trump didn't care what Sessions thought about anything. He was just a Republican that supported Trump when hardly any others would.
His campaign support? Chris Christie was a dead ender. Palin was a dead ender. Bolton was a dead ender. Guiliani was a dead ender. Trump never cared what Bolton said about anything, and as soon as Bolton bared himself as an aggressor, he was out. Except for Sessions, all the Republicans who supported Trump in his 2016 were people whose careers were over--which is why they were willing to sacrifice their reputations to support Trump.
True. Sessions couldn’t control his drug warrior boner. Although he made a good point in his confirmation hearing when he told whoever it was questioning him that if Congress doesn’t like the laws he’s enforcing , then it’s on them to change it. Although I recall that being in direct reference to immigration laws.
"In other words, Trump was such a pariah in 2016, that he had very few people to choose from in his cabinet."
Your assumption here is that selecting non-swamp critters was anathema?
hey! welcome back, Kotter.
Well look who decided to show up.
You got it backwards, partner.
They turned on Trump.
Trump is wrong to not want to start new wars! -sarcjeff probably
When Trump does it, he’s w(R)ong. When democrats do it, it’s (D)ifferent.
If Trump turns on the Neocons, what will Shrike say?
Good, doves aren't better either. Hopefully he does like his first administration in the foreign affairs dept. Overall one of his better areas of governance.
Despite not starting any wars, getting rid of the war hawks... Trump is still a war hawk.
Shorter Reason.
Those mean tweets are worse then the entire Vietnam conflict!
"But that doesn't mean he's embracing the doves."
Well Petti doesn't tell us who the doves are or exactly what a dove is. But as the article makes clear, Trump's goal is to end the current wars that the Biden regime has left him with and avoid future entanglements that will draw the US into more. He's making it clear that anybody in his administration that is not onboard will be gone. He won't get rolled again. There will be carrots and there will be sticks but the neocons won't be in charge. Reason pissed away any claim to anti war bona fides in 2020 when they campaigned for the Biden regime. I personally came here and predicted that the neocons would have full control of foreign policy and I was right. Hundreds of thousands now dead. The Koch "libertarians" have been dead wrong every time. Maybe Reason just shut the fuck up and get out of the way.
"...I personally came here and predicted that the neocons would have full control of foreign policy and I was right. Hundreds of thousands now dead..."
And, courtesy of Biden's 'photo-op' fucked-up Afghan withdrawal, millions of dollars of US military materiel is in the hands of terrorists.
Oh, and it seems Petti is but yet one more TDS-addled steaming pile of shit who needs to fuck off and die.
Admit it, listening to Bolton for even another day would be too much for anyone.
Mathew, remind us again of all the wars started by Trump...thought so. Go back to pimping for Iran and terrorists generally.
Never forget that, soon after he became Trump's National Security Advisor, Bolton fired R.Adm. R. Tim Ziemer, Trump's NSC's director in charge of global health security and biothreats, (May 8, 2018) and disbanded the unit.
Perhaps the biggest unforced error of the administration.
"After you, cher Alphonse!" "But non, non! After YOU my dear Gaston!"
I am not a "principled dove" either, although I strongly support avoiding wars we shouldn't get into and ending wars we should not be engaged in. I can imagine reprisal attacks against militants who have attacked us to at least temporarily prevent them from attacking us again without permanently occupying and trying to rebuild them again after achieving the desired result. I can imagine the Navy patrolling the world's oceans in order to have our military assets in place to immediately respond to any attacks on the United States, and to present a credible deterrence to make would-be attackers think twice. If we find ourselves engaged in a legitimate war, we should have the best military available to immediately destroy the attackers and "win" the war. This does not extend to maintaining treaties with everyone and anyone who wants us to defend them for free. It does not extend to maintaining military bases and military support to "make the world safe for democracy," the "global war against terrorism" or to prop up every tinhorn dictator who might support our hegemony or pretend to fight the "war on drugs" and protecting some imaginary "vital national interests."
John Bolton deserves a well placed kick in the nuts and then......