Trump’s firing of anti-Iran hawk Brian Hook and appointment of Michael DiMino as Dep. Sec. of Defense (Middle East) have angered anti-Iran elements in U.S. and Israel. Is Trump shifting his stance on Iran?
Several expected moves were made, for example, the cancellation of the security clearance of war-monger, John Bolton, and termination of his Secret Service detail; and cancellation of the security clearances of fifty former senior defense and intelligence officials that have been anti-Trump—and by extension, pro-Biden and his failed policies vis-à-vis Iran and Russia.
The appointment in Nov 2024 of Brian Hook to oversee the State Dept.’s transition was met with dismay by realist conservatives in the U.S. (including myself). Hook is an Iran-hater and architect of “maximum pressure” sanctions. In late 2024, Trump announced that Mike Pompeo (Christian Zionist and Iran-hater) will not be joining Trump II; and dismissed any role in Trump II for Iran-hater Nikki Haley, adding that Haley is a “birdbrain.” Hook was fired on 20 Jan 2025 via social media with one of Trump’s characteristic “you’re fired!” tweets.
Michael DiMino’s swearing-in on Mon., 20 Jan 25, has the “usual suspects”—Christian Zionists, Jewish Zionists, “Shah lovers” (devotees of the son of the deposed shah of Iran), Mujahidin-i Khalq (anti-Iran terrorist organization based in Albania—a NATO member that Tehran cannot strike—and armed by CIA and Mossad), and ISIS (yes, that ISIS)—clutching their pearls and fulminating on social media.
Why? DiMino has articulated rationalist American policies towards the Middle East (broadly) and Iran (specifically). DiMino, a former CIA analyst, has committed “heresy” in the eyes of Israel and its supporters. He analyzed Iran’s strikes on Israel as “fairly moderate”: they were: Iran demonstrated its awesome ballistic missile capacity to vaporize Israel with conventional warheads; and Iran assuredly has nuclear warheads. Tehran chose to only prove its capabilities. DiMino observed, correctly, to the horror of war-mongers/neocons and (Christian and Jewish) Zionists,
that the Middle East does “not really” matter for U.S. interests, arguing that “vital or existential threats” in the Middle East are “best characterized as minimal to nonexistent,” and that the U.S.’ role in the region has not provided any benefits. He said the U.S. can prevent terrorist threats emanating from the region without a major military presence, instead using diplomacy, leaning on local actors, intelligence monitoring and long-range strikes. He said the U.S. should significantly reduce its troop presence in the region, remove military outposts in Iraq, Syria and the Levant, and ultimately reassess its presence in the Gulf.
These are the positions that many skilled geopolitical and intelligence analysts, including myself, have held for years. (It is gratifying, by the way, to have a like-minded thinker leading Middle East policy at the Pentagon.) The U.S. has no strategic interests in the Middle East. We have sufficient oil and gas reserves not merely for domestic consumption, but for export. It was joyous for rationalists in the U.S. to hear Trump proclaim in his inauguration speech, “drill, baby, drill!” The dumping of the Paris climate accords and unfettered oil & gas exploration will increase our energy independence.
The primary reason the U.S. has military bases in the Middle East—apart from bases in NATO member, Turkey—is to protect Israel, i.e., U.S. bases in Iraq, Syria, Qatar, KSA, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, and Bahrain. Every member of the U.S. Armed Forces in the Middle East is at risk in the event of war with Iran only because the Israel lobby in demands the presence of U.S. military personnel in the Middle East. This is why an Israeli lobbyist, Jewish Insider, became hysterical about DiMino.
It remains to be seen if a genuine shift in policy is underway. American vassal states, viz., UK and EU, invariably try to prove their anti-Russia, anti-Iran, and anti-China policies are crazier and stupider than those prevailing in Washington. For example, Starmer’s ludicrous 100-year UK-Ukraine pact and pledge of £3 billion per year to Kiev. “E3” (DE, UK, FR) are engaged in nuclear talks with Iran. They have made unreasonable demands of Tehran that have been summarily rejected. E3 should keep its eyes on Washington and not be hawkish in their demands. They may find themselves out of step with their volatile new master.
Perspectives 
You must be logged in to post a comment.