Neocons Wage a Rearguard Action Against Trump's Middle East Peace Drive
Trump wants to negotiate instead of bombing Iran. Jilted war hawks are blaming his advisers.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) does not seem to trust President Donald Trump's foreign policy judgment. In an interview with the Jewish Insider published on Thursday, he called Trump's recent staff choices "alarming" and warned that the administration should steer clear of officials who "make their Obama and Biden predecessors look tough by comparison."
The next day, Fox News ran an article with the headline "Trump's latest hires and fires rankle Iran hawks as new president suggests nuclear deal." The hawks in question were Mark Levin, a former NeverTrumper who hosts a conservative radio show; Kasra Aarabi, director of research at United Against Nuclear Iran, a hawkish nonprofit chaired by Jeb Bush; and an anonymous "Iran expert" who called Trump's hires "very concerning."
It's not just Trump's hires who have the hawks concerned. In a Wednesday interview, Fox News host Sean Hannity tried to goad Trump into saying that he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites and oil refineries. Instead, Trump responded: "I want them to have a great country. They have great potential. The people are amazing. The only thing I've said about Iran is that they can't have a nuclear weapon….There are ways that you can make it absolutely certain if you make a deal."
Although Trump has postured as both a hawk and a dove at times, his stance towards the Middle East in his first term was aggressively hawkish, almost leading to war with Iran. During the 2024 campaign, Trump signalled more of the same, promising to make Iran broke and help Israel "finish the job" in Gaza. But so far this year, he has secured an Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire and signaled loudly that he wants to resolve America's disputes with Iran.
Along with the deal to free Israeli hostages, Trump adviser Elon Musk also reportedly negotiated for Iran to release an Italian journalist a week before Trump's inauguration.
In the process, Trump has purged many Middle East hawks who served in his first term. A few days before his auguration, Trump mocked "disloyal warmongers" in a social media post. He even revoked the government-issued security detail from former National Security Adviser John Bolton, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former Special Envoy Brian Hook, who was in charge of Iran.
"Last year, Trump promised he would blow Iran 'to smithereens' if it ever harmed an American presidential candidate. But pulling security away from Americans who need it, in a move seemingly motivated by personal animosity, he leaves America weaker and Tehran emboldened," the editorial board of the hawkish Free Press complained on Friday. "The president calls his whole agenda, 'America First.' This move is just the opposite."
Two staffers at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which had been highly influential during Trump's first term, made a desperate plea in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday for Trump to arm Israel for an attack on Iran and prepare U.S. forces for any Iranian retaliation.
"Many in Mr. Trump's America-first movement would probably rather see Iran go nuclear than have the U.S. pre-emptively destroy Iran's nuclear facilities," they wrote, pointing the finger at Vice President J.D. Vance and conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson.
Other Republican hawks have shied away from such a frontal attack on Trump. Instead, they've been claiming that the president is being misled by bad advisers. The pressure campaign has focused on Mike Dimino, the new assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East; Elbridge Colby, awaiting confirmation as undersecretary of defense for policy; and Steven Witkoff, the special envoy who brokered the Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire and is reportedly responsible for talks with Iran.
"It's amazing to me that over twenty years after the Iraq War, its architects and supporters are still—not fully in control of America's foreign policy, but certainly influential in it," Carlson said on a Saturday episode of his show. "And it's shocking to me that two months after Trump's landslide victory, a race in which he ran against the neocons, the neocons are still brazen enough to try and influence and sabotage his nominations."
Much of this pressure campaign has played out in the pages of Jewish Insider, where Republican sources have tried to cast Dimino as an opponent of Israel. In his own interview, McConnell alluded to Dimino without naming him.
Dimino, who served as a CIA officer before working at the libertarian-aligned Defense Priorities Foundation, is certainly not a fan of current U.S. alignments in the Middle East. "If you look at America's experience as the primary security broker in the region…it has not rendered any lasting political, economic, or security benefits in service of U.S. interests or the American people writ large," he said on a February 2024 panel, adding that U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria are "really there to counter Iran and that's really at the behest of the Israelis and the Saudis."
In an October 2023 interview, Dimino warned that "we should steel ourselves against" the risk of U.S. forces getting dragged into Israel's wars, and that "you can't really address any kind of long-term political arrangements in the Gulf or in the Middle East without also addressing" the Palestinian issue.
Fox News' coverage cast Colby, who will be in charge of U.S. military planning for the entire world, as "cut from the same cloth" as Dimino. To be clear, Colby is no anti-establishment dove. He comes from an old national security pedigree—his grandfather, former CIA Director William Colby, was famously described by the beatnik poet Allen Ginsberg as "chief of dirty tricks"—and Colby's overriding concern today is preventing China from dominating Asia. But that concern has also made Colby skeptical of U.S. aid to Ukraine and U.S. military commitments in the Middle East.
"Beijing will not be deterred from attacking Taiwan by actions America takes in Europe or the Middle East. Common sense dictates that it will only be deterred or defeated by the military might made available for Asia," Colby wrote in a July 2023 essay. "Washington needs to hyper-focus on the Western Pacific. It needs to reorient its military and defense industrial base, money, and political capital to urgently strengthen its defenses along the first island chain."
For years, conservatives who support a U.S. drawdown from the Middle East have tried to make common cause with the pro-Israel camp; Vance and Colby have both argued that indirect support to Israel would allow Washington to avoid direct involvement in the region. But the past few months have disproven that theory—and proven Dimino's warnings correct. In addition to funding and arming the Israeli war effort, the U.S. military has had to step in directly several times to shield Israel from Iranian retaliation and the regional spillover of the war.
Witkoff, who is proudly Jewish and ran an explicitly pro-Israel fundraising campaign during the elections, is hard to pidgeonhole as an anti-Israel fanatic. That hasn't stopped some hawks from trying. The anonymous "Iran expert" who spoke to Fox News argued that Dimino and Witkoff are "difficult to detangle, very concerning."
Soon after the November 2024 elections, Insider zeroed in on Witkoff's real estate dealings in Qatar, the oil-rich Arab monarchy that is a rival with Saudi Arabia. Months later, in a Fox News interview about the ceasefire, Witkoff thanked Qatar for its "enormously helpful" role in the talks and promised to visit Gaza in person.
For some hawks, that was confirmation that Witkoff was a Qatari stooge. Britain's Israel Advocacy Movement posted a clip of Witkoff's Fox News appearance, claiming that he has a "serious conflict of interest" with Qatar and questioning whether he can be trusted. Michael Pregent, a former intelligence officer and frequent congressional witness during the first Trump administrated, released a social media video claiming that Witkoff "has been cajoled by Qatar" and "is fucking up already."
Trump, however, seems pretty happy with Witkoff, who is his personal friend from their years in the real estate business. "He's done a fantastic job. He's a great negotiator," the president said at an executive order signing ceremony. "Steve has a wonderful way about him and people like him. And even in this case, both sides like him, and he was able to make a deal. That deal would have never been made without Steve."
Voters are happy, too. A recent Data for Progress poll shows 78 percent of Americans approving of the Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire. Rather than a consequence of wily advisers and palace intrigue, Trump's dovish shift on the Middle East might just be a genuine attempt to fulfill one of the most popular parts of his agenda.
"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," Trump said during his inaugural address. "My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That's what I want to be, a peacemaker and a unifier."
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
Trump has changed his position so many times now that His defender don't know what to think!
You. Are. A. Retard.
Do you have a life outside of trolling this comment section? Do not tire of the same mindless bleats every single day? Do you have interaction with humans outside of your keyboard? Do you realize your party was annihilated in November? Are you aware that it will be at least a generation before your party recovers from this historic beat down, if ever?
Maybe take some time to reflect, and you may find a meaningful existence in this brave new world.
Sure he does. He also gets blackout drunk and passes out in an alley behind a local dove bar.
I like Dove bars. Though I don't appreciate the way the ice cream drips down the stick as it melts.
Anyway, Sarc is a retard. Good day.
Love it!
"Trump has changed his position so many times now that His defender don't know what to think!"
How so, Sarkles? Explain yourself, show your work.
He is anti-war, and always has been. Open your eyes.
One Trump negotiation session is more powerful than 150 bombs.
This really is apparently the depth of policy discussion about the Middle East. Bomb Iran now or kick the can down the road a bit in order to be forced into picking sides to bomb Iran.
There is not one iota of serious thought about how to pivot away from the Middle East. Even though that place stopped being important to the US 30 years ago with the end of the Cold War.
"My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That's what I want to be, a peacemaker and a unifier."
haha. And if wishes were fishes ...
"There is not one iota of serious thought about how to pivot away from the Middle East."
I'm not sure that's possible. With China investing up to half a trillion $ in Iranian infrastructure, mostly energy related, and growing ties between Russia, China and Iran, nobody is about to pivot away from the Middle East. If Trump is set on conflict with China and Russia, Iran seems as good a place to start as any. If not, he may have better chances annexing Greenland, Canada, Panama, and fomenting chaos in Latin America.
Trump has shown zero desire to engage in war with Russia.
And he did not want to start a conflict with China. He just recognized that a state of conflict has existed for years.
"Trump has shown zero desire to engage in war with Russia."
Maybe so. But if he insists on war with China and Iran, he'll find himself at war with Russia. There are agreements in place that make this so. The world is a lot more complicated and unsympathetic to American concerns than Trump would have you believe.
No. China and Iran are set on war with us.
And Russia will come along for the ride. Don't think that Putin has America's interests at heart.
"But if he insists on war with China and Iran"
Did you know Trump caused WW3 way back in his first term, when he called Kim Jong Un "Rocketman" and droned an Iranian terrorist?
I thought it was WW3 for the comment about Kim, and WW4 for the Iranian. I'm sure this leaves out a few WW's started by him...
Don't forget the WW3 started by offing Suleiman.
"Did you know Trump caused WW3 way back in his first term,"
The world is a lot more complicated and unsympathetic to American concerns than Trump would have you believe.
The only two powers that are truly 100% into viewing power/polarity conflicts in solely military terms are the US and Russia. A view that is entirely a relic of the Cold War. A war that was focused on military brinkmanship but that was never resolved in blood. Basically they both still have their war boner.
Pivoting to Asia means pivoting away from the Middle East and Europe. It means a completely different approach to how we view the world. Can't keep cooking in all three areas. Not even two if Asia is one of them.
"Pivoting to Asia means pivoting away from the Middle East and Europe"
Trouble is Asia is pivoting to the Middle East. Huge Chinese investments in Iran, perhaps Gaza is next. Russian arming Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah. Diplomatic ties with Saudi, Palestine, Iran, etc.
That's not trouble for us. If China is pivoting towards the Middle East, then they are simultaneously pivoting away from the Pacific. Which is about as ideal a scenario for us as possible.
We share the same strategic goal (unlike Russia) - keep the oil flowing - and they have a much more honest reason for achieving that goal. ie - they actually want the oil to flow whereas we merely want to control the flow via a massive military expenditure that is what actually 'backs' our status as reserve currency.
The only three obstacles to internal Middle East peace are:
1. Iran's need for 'respect' as an ancient power; to get the US out of the region (that is the true aftermath of the 1953 coup); and to defend Shia minorities against Sunni majorities.
2. Israels need to expand into a Greater Israel whose mission creeps ever larger with US support. Which is very different from Israel existing as is.
3. WW1 borders drawn by colonial powers to divide and conquer which prevents a regional mutual alliance that might secure peace.
China has already made huge progress on dealing with the first conflict by having Iran and Saudi make deals. The US can ONLY be an obstacle because our presence has only ever made things worse - on all three obstacles. And we are still stuck on the stupid obsolescent goal of containing the Soviets.
If the Chinese want to jump into the Middle East, I say let them.
"If the Chinese want to jump into the Middle East, I say let them."
They've already jumped and their presence amounts to a veto on US ultimate control over the flow of oil. We see that in Biden and Trump's refusal to mount an attack on Iran on Israel's behest. Or deepen their involvement in Yemen. And also US reluctance to sign off on anything but symbolic Israeli strikes on Iran.
That's ok. The only people who want the US to micromanage the world and be global cop are the swamp in DC. Or so people here say.
Trump got rolled in his first term and he is very much aware of that fact. He's purging the ranks of the neocons and working on multiple fronts to end US involvement in wars that do not benefit us. It's called America First. There will be carrots and sticks, threats and conciliation but the bottom line is Trump doesn't like the waste of humanity that we contribute to. This is the primary reason I voted for him. But the MIC is a powerful force that will not go quietly into the night. Trump is very much aware of that fact. We shall see who wins in the end but I'm all in with the Trump agenda.
That (ending wars that don't benefit us) may be Trump's impulse. But he doesn't have the focus or managerial skill to persevere beyond the press conference or speeches that announce his impulses. That's why US troops stayed in Syria after Trump announced they would be withdrawn. That's why he pulled in two different groups of advisors this time to hedge his bets. One group will be fired when the SHTF and Trump decides the other is more beneficial for him.
So the only question is which one of those groups has the persistence and skill to achieve their goal. Only one of those groups will win in the swamp wrestling contest - and Trump will toss the losers aside like a dirty diaper.
"But he doesn't have the focus or managerial skill to persevere beyond the press conference or speeches that announce his impulses. That's why US troops stayed in Syria after Trump announced they would be withdrawn."
DoD LIED about the number of troops there. THAT is why they were not removed.
...did the same with Biden, mind you.
Did the same with Obama, too. These presidents never seem to learn. They make nice speeches though.
Who's the boss? A solid definition of managerial skill is knowing when your subordinates are lying and what to do about it
Notice the uproar when Trump named somebody not in bed with the defense contractors and in the top leadership of the military to lead the DoD?
That is why Hegseth was an inspired choice.
"Hegseth was an inspired choice"
To pull US troops from Syria? Isn't this where he is most closely aligned with the neo con agenda's support for Israel and opposition to Iran? The politically easy path would be to continue Biden's neo con ME policies and focus on ID political purges. After all, Trump's first bit of business at the DoD was the firing of the head of the Coast Guard, a woman, needless to say, and perhaps even a lesbian.
“A female lesbian! She should be guaranteed that job for life no matter what!”
-Every democrat
"“A female lesbian! "
Much easier to tot up victories against ID political targets, and besides it's red meat for the MAGA idiots. If the DoD turned its sights on actual adversaries equipped with armies, submarines, ICBMs and the like, failure is assured.
No Hegseth is not an 'inspired choice'. He has no organizational skills at all. My neighbor has a poodle with no ties to defense contractors or the top brass of the military. Each are equally inspired choices.
There are plenty of roles for a policy wonk/talking head. SecDef has ONE role - to be the civilian who wrestles the Pentagon down and ensures that the sharp end of the stick is under civilian control. I think it probably is difficult for someone to have the combination of military knowledge and organization skill without having any military experience beyond Natl Guard or managing a big organization. Which means the role of the Prez as Commander in Chief is to pick someone who can do the SecDef job - and then make sure they do just that.
Hegseth will be a complete waste at best.
Lots of declarative statements for someone who knows jack shit .
That's why US troops stayed in Syria after Trump announced they would be withdrawn.
When your generals are flat-out lying to you that they removed those troops, a lie that only came out towards the end of his first term, it makes it a bit difficult to blame that on Trump's lack of focus.
Those generals should have been lined up against a wall and shot for disobeying direct orders by the Commander-in-Chief to withdraw troops and continuing to put them in harm's way against his explicit directions.
Trump should fire the majority of the generals. They cannot do their one job well and the other jobs they try to do they ALSO suck at.
"When your generals are flat-out lying to you that they removed those troops"
That should have been Trump's assumption. Had he known or paid any attention to recent history, it would have been.
"continuing to put them in harm's way against his explicit directions."
Maybe his lack of focus hindered his ability to issue explicit directions. Do you have any idea of whom Trump was relying on for advice in military matters? His hand picked cabinet secretaries were working behind his back to thwart his initiatives.
Yep, a lot of people, were traitors to you democrats. All of you should be facing firing squads.
"All of you should be facing firing squads."
A lot easier than facing a real adversary with a capable military. I don't the Chinese or Russians (or anyone else) are the least bit fazed by all this 'kill the Democrats' rhetoric, do you? Maybe look up the term 纸老虎 in your Chinese/English dictionary when you've a moment to spare.
All I got was 是的,我们没有香蕉
You're just making excuses. A real Commander in Chief doesn't accept a movie (eg The Longest Day) in the stead of actual D-Day.
And it is not at all a surprise that your stupid ilk thinks executing the subordinates is the solution - while perpetually excusing and rehiring an incompetent CinC
But he doesn't have the... managerial skill
Good. Excellent. This would still all be in committee from his first term if he had the mAnAgEriAL sKiLLs you're thinking of.
As for actual management skills he turned a couple of million into a several billion dollar real estate empire, so I think he knows how to manage.
Whatever his skills, they are certainly superior to yours.
" It's called America First. "
Who is second? Trump seems at the moment to be focused on alienating traditional American friends - Canada, Mexico, NATO, Israel. This can only benefit the burgeoning China/Russia/BRICS bloc. I think Trump is overestimating his ability to threaten, bully and cajole foreign powers which now have an increasingly viable alternative to American influence.
Shake the neocon tree, something zionist gonna fall out.
McConnell is a useless government parasite!
Trump wants to force the population out Gaza completely, which is very illegal. So of course he is not trusted.
Saying one should do something is not requiring anything.
Wanting things is illegal? According to whom?
That statement was really a disappointment. It ain't easy to imagine that the Middle East can itself secure a regional peace. Internally - without permanent US involvement. The Abraham Accords showed a hint.
But everything since then has proven that the US is only capable of being the power behind a Greater Israel. Which, as Jabotinsky (the original Likudnik) wrote 100 years ago, it is how the Iron Wall can happen but not how peace happens.
Trump is just a real estate developer after all. Not a Nobel winner.
We get it. You hate Israel and want the Jews dead.
Warmongering Neocons begone
This article is an obfuscation from Trump’s recent statements that he is onboard with aiding and abating the tyrannical and genocidal Zionist State of Israel in their further efforts to destroy the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank. Afterall, at least in the case of Gaza, “Gaza has already been destroyed and there is nothing left there for them.”
Fuck off Misek.
Genocidal Zionist Nazi supporter. You know I’m not him and frankly I’m not particularly offended by you saying so. We should run the Zionists out of Tel-Aviv and give their houses to The Gazans.
Fuck off, Misek. Go back to Stormfront, you dishonest Nazi.
How would I know you’re not him? You say the same stupid bullshit and in over a decade I’ve never seen another neo Nazi here.
“Peace Drive”? What a friggen joke.
'Cuz Neocon adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone so well...
As if sixty years of the shit show hasn’t shown us anything.
Question: Why don't fake conservatives like McConnell, Murkowski, Collins, Romney, Cheney, et. al. just join the democratic party and be done with it since these neo-cons are always kissing the ass of the democrats?
Answer: Trump is old and his days are numbered. There are plenty of disaffected Republicans who have put their careers on hold waiting for the opportune moment for a come back. I don't think any of them have joined the Democrats. They aren't all neo cons either. From what I recall, some are decent chaps like Justin Amash.
"You can't really address any kind of long-term political arrangements in the Gulf or in the Middle East without also addressing the Palestinian issue."
"Address" in this context is a weasel-word. It has no meaning. What Palestinian issue? How does one "address" a million terrorists who will not stop attacking you until the Jewish state no longer exists? Why should America address this "issue" instead of Israel? Enough with the pretense, guys!
"How does one "address" a million terrorists who will not stop attacking you until the Jewish state no longer exists? "
I've answered this question many times over the years. A single state, stretching from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean). Not a Jewish state, mind you, nor an Islamic state. Just a normal place where all citizens are equal before the law. The fact that fanatics on both sides of the issue are dead against such a solution makes it the inevitable compromise.
The Muslims only want a total Muslim state. Anyone who fails to recognize this fact is a fool.
Then it's up to Israel's Jews, Christians and atheists to persuade them otherwise. You bringing to bear your phony mind reading skills on the question isn't making things any easier. I recommend you MAGA idiots tend your own garden. There are plenty of women, gays and blacks in the US who need your attention. Let Israel's Jews and Muslims sort out their own problems, which are severe enough already without your interference.
It is clear from Trump's recent actions that his new advisors are blithering idiots who think that Gaza is like razing a Black slum to erect an office tower.
This is an oddly titled article.
So, should we not have a rearguard?
Because you know those slimy jihadis are never going to commit to long-term peace.
You can whine about it being "neocon" or "warhawk" all you want - but the simple fact of the matter is that Iran will never tolerate the existence of West. Maybe - MAYBE - we had an opportunity for that prior to Jimmy Carter (screw you, I don't care if the flags are still at half-staff) - but in the last four decades? Laughable.
They may accept a slapdown and be quiet for awhile, but they'll keep coming back, and testing the fence, and coming back, and swallowing whenever they can get a bite, and instigating chaos wherever they can.
Let me put this very plainly: you cannot have Islam and "Middle East Peace." You get one or the other. Whichever one you pick, you necessitate the extermination of the other.
I choose the latter. Why don't you?
Another zionist nut falls to the ground.
That's an odd reply. I said nothing whatsoever that could be considered "Zionist."
And I defy you to quote a single word or phrase to the contrary.
Does your definition of "Zionist" mean anti-Iran? Or anti-Islam? If so, how are either of those things in any way not 1000000% justified?
You just called me a Zionist. I'm going to call you a Jihadi. Hyperbole is fun, right? Probably not fair, likely not true - but if you're doing to make me defend Zionism, then I think it's only fair that you defend your Jihadism.
You're wrong. Islam and Middle East peace were kind of the norm for centuries before the Europeans chose to fuck up the break up of the Ottoman Empire for their own colonial objectives. And then chose to start another religious war/crusade over Jerusalem with implants/refugees from Europe. And then Americans chose to use oil as a political/military weapon via supporting corrup autocrats who would ensure their populations were hostile because they would be oppressed by the West. Thus providing an opportunity for the Soviets to sell their shit
That whole region needs a century of being ignored.
I agree. Let's nuke Iran, then ignore the region for the next 10,000 years.
You're wrong. Islam and Middle East peace were kind of the norm for centuries before the Europeans chose to fuck up the break up of the Ottoman Empire for their own colonial objectives.
Uh, no. Check your history books. The Seljuk Empire (Muslims) knocked out Byzantine. Europeans tried a few Crusades, failed, fast forward 500 years and you've got Suleiman expanding the region what would become the Ottoman Empire which pushed its way - by heavy militaristic force - into Africa, Central Europe, and the Arabian Peninsula. As the Empire was waning, they pushed their chips in on the future-Nazis (Central Powers), but got out-military'd by the West who then broke up the region to put a end to half a millennia of Muslim aggression.
Islam is a religion of hate, violence, conquest, oppression, and death. In its entire history, it has NEVER - EVER - known a time of peace and stability. Not even in its Golden Age could they curb their propensity for trying to conquer, dominate, or kill anyone who didn't subscribe to Islamic law. It's a feature, not a bug. The core tenet is the subjugation of everyone to it, and to indiscriminately kill anyone who resists.