Abdullah Miroğlu
“Two things seem certain: The clash between the foreign policy tribes of the Republican Partywill continue for the next few years, and the Trump administration we have on day one maynot be the one we have six months later.”
WARRING WINGS
During Trump’s first presidential term, Elbridge Colby, who served as Deputy AssistantSecretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development, was expected to be appointed to a more influential position in the new term, such as Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, orNational Security Advisor. However, Trump chose to nominate other individuals for thesepositions. Colby was the architect of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which wasprimarily characterized by its strong anti-China stance during the first Trump administration.
According to analysts, Colby’s close ties with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who ranagainst Trump in the Republican primaries, prevented him from being appointed to thesepositions. Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense came as a surprise tomany, leaving Colby seemingly sidelined. However, Trump later announced that Colby wouldbe nominated for Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Elbridge Colby, the grandson of William Egen Colby, who served as CIA Director in the1970s, is known as a strategist advocating for the United States to focus all its power againstChina. Colby, a staunch China hawk, has written books and articles arguing that the U.S. should strengthen its military and economic power in the Asia-Pacific rather than expendingresources in Europe and the Middle East. His “China First” approach is recognized as part of the “prioritization school” in foreign policy circles.
Elbridge Colby argues that the United States should use its limited defense resources toprevent a hostile hegemonic power (China) from gaining dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. According to Colby, the world’s economic and political center of gravity is not Europe, but Asia, and if Beijing were to dominate the region, it would severely restrictAmerica’s future prospects and freedom of action. Therefore, shifting the military focus fromEurope and the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific and concentrating solely on China should be the United States’ top priority.
It is highly likely that Colby’s doctrine has unsettled the “Israel Lobby” and the bipartisanforeign policy establishment (the Blob). This is because his strategy places Europe and theMiddle East— including Israel—at the bottom of U.S. priorities. However, Colby is not an anti-Israel strategist; rather, he believes that Iran can be contained without jeopardizingIsrael’s security. This stance led to Colby being labeled a “dove” regarding Iran policy.
Indeed, a November 13, 2022, article published by the Washington-based Jewish newswebsite “Jewish Insider“ titled “Elbridge Colby’s dovish views on Iran come to the fore in Trump’s nomination process“ was significant in understanding how pro-Israel circles perceiveColby.
The article, written by Matthew Kassel, noted that Colby was supported by Tucker Carlson, the Trumpist ideologue and well-known television host. It also pointed out that Colby wasaffiliated with “WestExec“, a defense consulting firm co-founded by Biden’s Secretary of State, Antony Blinken.
Tucker Carlson, one of the few voices Trump listens to, had drawn bipartisan outrage fromanti-Russia hawks for opposing U.S. military aid to Ukraine. Both this and the focus on Colby’s “Blinken connection“ were clear attempts to prevent Colby from being appointed toan influential position.
The article also highlighted that Colby opposed direct military action against Iran but considered containing a nuclear Iran to be a highly reasonable and practical objective.
The article referenced a former official from Trump’s first administration, who stated thatColby’s views—particularly on Iran—were almost indistinguishable from those of formerPresident Barack Obama. This official remarked:
“While Iran is trying to kill Trump and is on the verge of acquiring a weapon, I don’tunderstand how you put someone in charge of a serious defense or national security positionwho says he’s okay with Iran having nuclear weapons.”
Additionally, while Colby largely aligned with Trump and the Republican Party in theirstance against China, his appointment to a key position at the Pentagon could spark tensionsdue to his views on Iran and the Middle East.
Matthew Kassel noted that Trump had nominated Iran hawks such as Mike Waltz as NationalSecurity Advisor, Elise Stefanik as Ambassador to the United Nations, and John Ratcliffe as CIA Director. The author went further, reminding readers that Ratcliffe, who served as Director of National Intelligence during Trump’s first term, supported a joint U.S.-Israelmilitary operation against Iran.
Furthermore, Trump’s new Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, had previously advocated forbombing Iran, while Senator Marco Rubio—one of the leading anti-Iran hawks in the Senate—had been nominated for Secretary of State.
Kassel implied that the appointment of these Iran hawks left no room for Colby. He alsopointed out that Colby was aligned with Vice President J.D. Vance, who believed thatavoiding war with Iran was in America’s best interest. As a result, Colby would have to settlefor a position alongside Vance.
However, Trump had a habit of keeping figures with completely opposing views within thesame administration. To maintain control over his team, Trump positioned Colby alongsideRubio.
On November 22, 2024, the news website “Vox“ published an article by Joshua Keating titled“Three Foreign Policy Factions Fighting for Trump’s Ear“. In this piece, Keating referencedthe arguments made against Elbridge Colby in “Jewish Insider“.
Highlighting the conflicts between different factions, Keating concluded with the followingstatement:
“Two things seem certain: The clash between the foreign policy tribes of the Republican Partywill continue for the next few years, and the Trump administration we have on day one maynot be the one we have six months later.”
NEOCONS’ TROJAN HORSES
Another figure who expected to be appointed as Secretary of Defense (Pentagon) by Trump was Mike Pompeo. Pompeo, considered one of the “post-9/11 Neocons”, had previouslyserved as CIA Director and later as Secretary of State during Trump’s first term.
One of the main strikes against Pompeo in the Trumpist camp was his strong support forUkraine. Additionally, Pompeo’s attempt to run as a candidate in the 2024 Republicanprimaries was met with fierce opposition from Trump’s son, Don Jr., and Tucker Carlson.
Don Jr. even posted that Pompeo should be “smart enough” not to run against his father. Likewise, on his show, Carlson stated, “Someone like Mike Pompeo—I’ll just say his name—I don’t think he’s going to get a job in this administration. I pray that doesn’t happen.”
Ultimately, Pompeo decided to withdraw from the presidential race. However, now thatTrump had announced his candidacy, Pompeo’s move would not be forgotten.
Still, just before November 5, Trump had Pompeo applauded by his supporters at a rally. Thiscreated the perception that Trump was planning to give Pompeo a role in his newadministration.
After the election, numerous reports in the American media speculated that Pompeo would be nominated for Secretary of Defense. Many influential Republicans even called Trump directly, insisting that Pompeo must be included in the new administration.
These influential Republicans feared that Trump’s inner circle was pressuring him toassemble a national security team that would be reluctant to use U.S. military power tosupport American allies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
Such a strategic shift, they believed, could undermine both Ukraine’s military operationsagainst Russia and Israel’s geopolitical maneuvers.
According to these figures, Trump was surrounded by advisors pushing him toward an unprecedented “isolationist” approach—one that would allow Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, andIran to act freely without U.S. intervention.
For them, appointing Pompeo as Secretary of Defense was necessary to counter these fears.
From the perspective of “Establishment Republicans“, Pompeo’s nomination was crucial toensuring that the Pentagon remained committed to a hardline stance against China, Russia, and Iran.
According to reports in the American media, Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, Richard Grenell, andTulsi Gabbard were quietly campaigning behind the scenes to prevent Trump from givingPompeo a role in the administration.
There was even a “Stop Pompeo” movement launched on social media platforms, emphasizing the need for maximum pressure to keep Neocons and war hawks out of Trump’sadministration.
According to these posts, Mike Pompeo was a “Trojan horse” attempting to infiltrate Trump’sinner circle.
Another move against Pompeo came from one of Trump’s most loyal allies, Roger Stone, who was known for his sharp political instincts and expertise in electoral strategy.
Stone had been convicted on seven felony counts, including perjury, witness tampering, andobstruction of justice, as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election in favor of Trump. However, Trump used his presidentialpowers to pardon Stone.
On November 8, Stone published an article on his website, warning Trump not to includePompeo or former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley in his new administration.
Calling Pompeo a “hardcore Neocon” who advocates for endless wars, Roger Stone warnedthat many Neocons were positioning themselves to take on influential roles in Trump’ssecond administration.
According to Stone, this ominous fifth column (the Neocons) posed a greater threat toTrump’s “America First” agenda than the left-wing faction within the Democratic Party.
“If Pompeo is part of the next Trump administration, his history suggests that he will supportthe hegemony of the deep state rather than a true ‘America First’ agenda,” Stone argued.
He also reminded readers that as Secretary of State, Pompeo appointed James Jeffrey as theU.S. Special Representative for Syria and the notorious Neocon Elliott Abrams as Special Envoy for Venezuela.
According to Stone, Pompeo had built a pipeline of ‘Never Trump’ loyalists to secure keypositions within the State Department.
Emphasizing that Pompeo and Haley were the worst examples of the type of figures whoneeded to be excluded from the new administration, Stone concluded his article with thestatement:
“Ultimately, personnel is policy, and if Trump is to fully carry out his national mission, theseshadowy figures and their ilk must be permanently purged from the America First movement.”
Two days after Stone’s article, Trump announced that he would not invite Haley or Pompeo tojoin his new administration.
Stone and other like-minded Trump allies had succeeded in their efforts. Many Trumpists whoopposed America’s endless wars welcomed the announcement with enthusiasm.
On the surface, Trump appeared to be purging the Republican Party of Neocons.
However, this celebration was overshadowed by the fact that Trump nominated Elise Stefanik—who shared a Neoconservative mindset—to replace Haley, and Pete Hegseth—who was not much different from Stefanik—to replace Pompeo.
The people had changed, but the hats remained the same.
TRUMP DEMANDS FULL LOYALTY
In Trump’s second term, several key figures were expected to play a larger role in shapingAmerican foreign policy, including:
The appointments of Rubio as Secretary of State and Waltz as National Security Advisor werewelcomed by both establishment Republicans and centrist Democratic hawks.
However, the same circles strongly opposed the appointment of former Democraticcongresswoman Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, arguing that she was not a “reliable” figure for national security.
Another controversial pick was Kash Patel, an Indian-American nominated for FBI Director, who these groups also did not approve of.
Pete Hegseth, who was appointed as Secretary of Defense, was considered an unsuitablechoice due to allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive alcohol consumption.
It was initially believed that centrist Republicans in the U.S. Senate might block his confirmation, but Trump personally intervened to remove this obstacle.
The main reason for Hegseth’s selection was his unwavering loyalty to Trump andwillingness to enforce his orders in restraining Pentagon generals.
During his first term, Trump had a serious dispute with Defense Secretary James Mattis overwithdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Syria. Mattis ultimately resigned, yet Trump was still misled about the actual number of American troops in Syria.
Not wanting to experience a similar situation again, Trump relied on Hegseth to ensure thatthe military bureaucracy would not undermine him from within.
The same reasoning applied to Trump’s pick for Director of National Intelligence, TulsiGabbard, who would oversee all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
Trump believed that Gabbard would prevent intelligence agencies from manipulatinginformation.
Similarly, Trump expected the same level of loyalty from John Ratcliffe, whom he appointedas CIA Director, and Kash Patel, whom he nominated for FBI Director.
Trump trusted these figures to ensure that his policies would not be obstructed in any way bythe national security, defense, and foreign affairs bureaucracies.