As dawn approaches for the upcoming Trump administration, an illusory image confronts the American patriot. What appears on all fronts as a unanimous victory for those who hold “America First” as the gauge of their political barometer and needle of their geo-political compass, is when viewed in greater detail merely a mirage of victory produced by the desert of the American deep state. Donald Trump is an icon of light, and the consequence is that the surrounding elements of his presidential victory are blurred, one’s vision pulled in by the image of a man regarded as a savior.
If that last statement appears far too bold, in a tweet from Elon Musk, one of Trump’s top donors in his 2024 campaign and quite possibly a deciding factor in his victory, wrote, “This is the most important election of your LIFE!!.The fate of our civilization is at stake”. Furthermore, in a rally held in Butler, Pennsylvania, Musk claimed that, in reference to voters, “If they don’t {vote for Trump}, this will be the last election. That’s my prediction.”
Certainly, from this rhetoric, the stakes appear exceedingly high. Anti-liberal and anti-globalist sentiment has become more vocal since Trump’s victory in 2016, and the conflict between liberalism and conservatism has only become more extreme in the past few years. Much of Biden’s 2020 campaign ran on a message of “returning to normalcy”, but it appears the inverse of this goal was accomplished during his administration. But, if one thing has remained “normal” it would be the United States’ policy in the Middle East.
A new right-wingism emerged out of Trump in 2016, an ideology of conservatism positioned directly at odds with the typical Neo-conservatism that gained prominence during the Bush administration after 9/11 and that has marked conservatism for the past two decades. Neo-conservatism puts an emphasis on national security, promotion of “democracy” abroad, and places America as a global leader and beacon of light to the nations of the world — in short, Neo- conservatism is characterized by its emphasis on foreign policy and interventionism. Its political motto has been “The War on Terror”.
Trump ran on a platform directly at odds with typical Neo-conservatism. He was against the Iraq war, calling it a “big fat mistake,” pushed for withdrawal of troops from Syria and Afghanistan, and has repeatedly used rhetoric criticizing the “globalist elite”. The motto of Trumpism is America First — Americanism, not globalism. However, Trump’s first administration was largely Neo-conservative with its stance towards Israel and the Middle East. In fact, it could be said that no President has supported Israel more than Trump during his first administration. The controversial movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights, and the facilitation of the Abraham accords all occurred during his presidency. It could even be argued that the Abraham Accords were a main reason for the October 7th attacks, setting the stage for further conflicts in the region and necessitating further US intervention.
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that Trump’s administration has already been infiltrated by Neo-conservatives that have objectives antithetical to Trumpism — that Trumpism, in 2024, has been utilized as a disguise to once again prioritize and ensure Neo-conservative interests and goals. In addition, it aims to prove that much of the support Trump gained during his 2024 campaign run was due to this infiltration, and that the self-evident goal of this infiltration is the escalation of a conflict with Iran at the behest of Israel. It is the ultimate aim of the article to demonstrate that this conflict is merely another step in a plan of foreign policy that was developed in the late 90s, the conclusion of which is uncontested Israeli control of the Middle East through territorial expansion and regime change.
“The Clean Break Report: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” is considered to be the manifesto of Neo-conservatism. Written largely by Richard Perle (alongside other U.S. policy advisors) — the architect of the Iraq War and a key advisor to former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld — for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu, the report outlines recommendations for Israeli security and foreign policy in the Middle East. Although it was primarily written for Israel, many elements of the report influenced U.S. foreign policy, specifically the push for regime change in Iraq and the broader Middle East. The events of the last two decades in the Middle East reflect the developing accomplishment of the goals outlined in the report alongside further derivations of the same ideology — a hardline aggressive attitude towards Middle Eastern countries and unquestionable support for Israel.
By rejecting the interventionist and globalist priorities that define Neo- conservatism, Trump, and what could be called “Trumpism”, emerged as a direct challenge to these priorities. Consider for a moment the antagonism many seasoned conservative politicians in Washington had for Trump before, during, and after his first term.
To cite a few examples:
Rick Perry characterized Trump as a “cancer” on the Republican Party. He served as Trump’s Secretary of Energy. The National Interest wrote in 2011 that “George W. Bush has been reborn” in reference to Perry.
James Mattis called Trump a threat to American Institutions. He served as Trump’s Secretary of Defense.
Nikki Haley described Trump as a dangerous choice for the Republican Party and refused to endorse him at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Haley served as Trump’s UN Ambassador during his 2016 term. She was a key figure in the movement of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, a decision that was widely condemned by the UN general Assembly (by a 128-9) vote and reversed decades of US foreign policy efforts in the Middle East. Notably, Haley was also part of a long line of UN Ambassadors that vetoed UN condemnation of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
John Bolton, formally a vocal critic of Trump during his 2016 campaign, was appointed National Security Advisor. On November 13th 2024 Bolton told reporters that "Trump is probably saying [to Israel] do whatever you want before January 20th.”
The pattern visible for the discerning eye is one that reveals the truth of the desert and eradicates the mirage that has taken an even stronger grip of the American Conservative base this year than in 2020. Notably, that Trump is on the surface a candidate that espouses America First ideals, but his administration — those who effectively run the particulars of his responsibilities — is decidedly Neo- conservative. The supposed “challenge” of Trumpism against Neo-conservatism is a mere farce, a facade upheld by the hope of unfulfilled rhetoric and political sleight of hand. What began as a man outside of the system fighting to topple that system has become another example of capitulation — deception exists as a method to ensure it appears as though a conflict exists.
Politicians that were vocal opponents of Trump, due to the essence of his campaign being a challenge to Neo-conservatism, not only weren’t punished for their lack of support, but were rewarded. The same thing is occurring in Trump’s 2024 campaign, and the rhetoric about ending American foreign intervention is just that, rhetoric. In truth, the backdrop of the Israel-Hamas war has set the stage for Trump’s 2024 administration to be one of the most Neo-conservative since Bush.
In other words, the wild-card candidate that won his way into the Oval Office through the sheer energy of the will of a populace conquered by foreign interests has been conquered by those very same interests.
To demonstrate this, let us dive into the people Trump has selected thus far for his second term.
Brian Hook has been selected to lead the transition team for the State Department, a move that news network Jewish Insider described as “encouraging” for Pro-Israel leaders in an article published on November 8th. Furthermore, the subtitle for the article is “Hook helped oversee Trump’s muscular pressure campaign against Iran”. Hook was also a notable player in the Abraham Accords. Danielle Pletka, a member of American Enterprise Institute (a Neo-conservative think tank that is heavily funded by AIPAC) applauded the choice, stating that “No one knows better than he {Hook} the menace Iran represents to us and our allies. The government security he has every day is a terrifying reminder of that.”
Trump’s selection for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a political commentator for Fox News, recently said that Iran is “at war with the US” and suggested letting Israel destroy their nuclear facilities. Such action would inevitably involve the US in a major foreign conflict that has the potential of escalating into a major global conflict.
Mike Waltz, a notorious hawkish Neo-conservative, was selected as National Security Advisor. According to an article titled “Trump picks Iran critic, hawkish Israel supporter Mike Waltz as national security advisor” by Marc Rod of the Jewish Insider, Waltz “told Jewish Insider in September that the U.S. should be putting pressure on Hamas and its Iranian backers, and accused the Biden administration of applying “one-sided pressure on Israel to make a [cease-fire] deal” with Hamas in Gaza.” Furthermore, “Michael Makovsky, the president of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America called Waltz “an excellent appointment.”
The most egregious example of this infiltration and sleight of hand is Trump’s selection of Marco Rubio, a Senator who ran against Trump in 2016 and was vocal critic against him when he secured the nomination. Rubio is also a notorious Neo- conservative and, like Hegseth, views Iran as a major threat and advocates for aggressive military policies in the Middle East. Not only that, Trump tweeted in 2015 that “Rubio is totally owned by the lobbyists and special interests,” and that “Sheldon Adelson is looking to give big dollars to Rubio because he feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet. I agree!”.
Sheldon Adelson, now deceased, was the husband of Miram Adelson. Miram Adelson is the richest Israeli in the world and a proud Zionist who charitably funds the Zionist Organization of America. She and her husband have been the largest donors of Trump’s campaigns. Ironically, she has written that “Trump deserves a ‘Book of Trump’ in the Bible due to his support for Israel.”
One of Trump’s biggest donors this campaign cycle was Bill Ackman, a notorious democrat who made the switch last winter after supposedly discovering the massive meritocracy issue with programs such as DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion). He, alongside Ronald Lauder (the head of the World Jewish Congress) launched a massive campaign against then Harvard President Claudine Gay, rooting her out of her position supposedly due to discoveries of plagiarism in her prior academic work. It would appear to the naive viewer that this was simply someone discovering the negative ramifications of programs that disregard merit in favor of racial programs of equity, but the truth is far more complicated and revealing.
After outing Gay, it was discovered that Ackman’s own wife, a former professor at MIT, had also plagiarized sources in her own phd dissertation. Was there any similar outcry from Ackman? Perhaps a derision of nepotism given his seemingly staunch support of meritocracy? The problem Ackman and other donors had with Gay was not that she plagiarized but rather that she was not adequately condemning enough of the pro-Palestinian protests on her campus. Similarly, the president of UPenn was also outed for the same reason. Their replacements show no such leniency to protestors.
It’s here that we discover why there was support among formerly anti-Trump billionaires and figures for Trump, particularly those of Jewish descent. Notably, the wide-spread presence of anti-Zionism among the voter base of the left. One is able to crush two birds with one stone. On the surface, people such as Ackman can claim that the problem on these college campuses is the overt leftism that, once a staunch supporter of the Jewish people, has now become a snake that is consuming its own tail. The American eagle however can swoop down and kill this self- destructing snake. The line of nuance is priority. Is it overt leftism that informs these figures’ derision, or, is it the growing contempt for Israel on university campuses? No matter — Trump is the eagle, or rather, the hawk.
Trump’s hawkish rhetoric on Iran during his 2024 campaign trail is no coincidence. If we shift our attention from America to Israel, we find a country that has been in a prolonged conflict with a small militia group in a ravaged and cut off strip of land, a country that has obtained the hatred of most of the world, a country that amidst insistent and endless calls for ceasefire from the Oval Office has decided on a course of action that treats “de-escalation as escalation”. Israel has entered conflict on its northern border with Hezbollah and continues its missile exchanges with Iran, among other tactics of war. Every escalation of the conflict is followed by the “urging” of U.S. officials for cease-fires. It appears that the best the United States can do in relation to Israel is urge it to act differently. Who holds the leverage in this situation?
When the US moved the embassy to Jerusalem, Nikki Haley stated that “the U.S. will move its embassy to Jerusalem and "no vote in the UN will make any difference on that" and that the US was "by far the single largest contributor to the UN." She also warned that the US might also cut funding to the UN itself.” Is the United States not the single largest contributor to Israel? But whose votes matter here? Is it American citizens? Is it American leaders? We return to the desert.
During and after Trump’s administration, there was every attempt to silence, neuter, and eradicate Trump by various arms of the American machine. From the media running numerous misleading pieces on him and censoring him on platforms such as Twitter to impeachment and imprisonment efforts. Following the events of January 6th, another four years of this treatment followed. But...a peculiar change began after October 7th. Given the developing inability for media organizations to control the narrative regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict and the hesitancy of the Biden administration in remaining in the middle of the conflict (both urging Israel to cease the conflict while repeatedly sending financial packages), it’s clear that a political shift began among those who hold Israel as the needle of their political compass.
The original fear regarding Trump was his presence as someone outside of the political system. With no political history, Trump emerged not only as a challenge to Neo-conservatism in 2016 but the entire political machine in America. Here was someone who had no need of funds — he had his own money. Here was someone who had no need for advertisements — he had his own fame. It is often said that a king is born outside of his kingdom and Trump’s shocking and completely unanticipated victory in 2016 appeared to be, for many of his Christian supporters, an almost religious omen. But Trump is merely a mirage. He is what we keep our eyes on. During Trump’s first administration, American politicians worried about his unpredictability — this worry no longer exists.
US officials have consistently urged Israel to end conflict but Israel has continued not only the conflict with Hamas but expanded its war efforts. The reason is clear. The Likud administration run by Netanyahu has continued forward in the “securing of the realm” with faith in a Trump victory. Can we call it faith? It remains to be seen what the consequences of Trump’s second term will be. There has already been a foiled assassination attempt on his life by Iran.
In 1998, Neo-conservatives published two open letters to President Clinton that called for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Of the people I’ve mentioned in this article, three were signatories: John Bolton, Richard Perle, and Donald Rumsfeld. The intent behind the letters was war with Iraq. However, they were not enough to persuade the Clinton administration, nor were the efforts of the Neo-conservatives enough to convince George W. Bush in the early months of his administration — until 9/11 that is.
There is a common saying that “history always repeats itself”. Although I possess little enthusiasm for Karl Marx, he put a spin on this saying that I quite like: “History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce.” Its clear that often a farce is even more real than the real. This is the desert after all and it has always been mirages that have captivated us the most. In truth, the sandstorm rages on.
