In March, it was reported that the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg had been part of a private Signal chat that also included then–National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others.
They discussed sensitive plans about bombing Yemen.
The greatest focus after the story broke was how Goldberg, a journalist, could have possibly been included in this chat. Legacy media and left-leaning news outlets pounced on this aspect, eager to highlight the Trump administration’s supposed incompetency. Few to none focused on the wisdom of attacking the Houthis, something Vance questioned in the chat.
But the press did have a point about incompetency, even if it wasn’t the one they intended. How did the notorious “anti-Trump hater” Goldberg become part of this conversation?
Because neoconservatives stick together. They work together. They scheme together.
Neocons consistently work against President Trump’s stated desire to be a peacemaker whenever and wherever they can.
Mike Waltz, who had Goldberg in his phone contacts and knew him despite his denials, and who was relieved of his duties as national security advisor this week and nominated for the United Nations’ ambassador role, is certainly one such neocon.
So is Goldberg, who wrote mere months before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 that “the relationship between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda is far closer than previously thought,” a bald-faced lie neocons were willing to tell back then to goad Americans into supporting arguably the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history.
Goldberg has long been a reliable purveyor of neocon narratives. He was not only willing to lie about the imaginary relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but also peddled the fantasy that Trump was an “agent” of Putin and the unsubstantiated claim that the president called military veterans “losers” while visiting a World War I memorial.
Waltz and Goldberg belong to the camp that would very much like the Trump administration to bomb Iran and have the U.S. become ensnared in an Iraq-style war, the exact opposite of what Trump campaigned on.
Though savvier than Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is also closer to this neoconservative camp.
In mid-April, Axios reported on the two opposing and considerably different foreign policy forces within Team Trump: “One camp, unofficially led by Vice President Vance, believes a diplomatic solution is both preferable and possible and that the U.S. should be ready to make compromises in order to make it happen. Vance is highly involved in the Iran policy discussions, another U.S. official said.”
“This camp includes also Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff—who represented the U.S. at the first round of Iran talks on Saturday—and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth,” Axios noted. “It also gets outside support from MAGA influencer and Trump whisperer Tucker Carlson.”
The report continued,
The other camp, which includes national security adviser Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is highly suspicious of Iran and extremely skeptical of the chances of a deal that significantly rolls back Iran’s nuclear program, U.S. officials say.
Senators close to Trump like Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also hold that view,” Axios observed. “This camp believes Iran is weaker than ever, and therefore the U.S. should not compromise but insist Tehran fully dismantle its nuclear program — and should either strike Iran directly or support an Israeli strike if they don’t. Iran hawks like Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, are lobbying hard for that approach.
On April 3, not long after “Signalgate” and two weeks before the Axios report, the conservative commentator Charlie Kirk shared on X, “It’s going unnoticed because so much other news is happening, but the war drums are beating again in D.C. The warmongers worry this is their last chance to get the white whale they’ve been chasing for thirty years, an all-out regime change war against Iran.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has wanted regime change in Iran. So has Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR). Rubio has threatened the same, even while serving as Trump’s secretary of state.
It’s almost as if war-eager politicians learned nothing from America’s last regime change wars. Kirk would add, “A new Middle East war would be a catastrophic mistake.”
A new Middle East war is exactly what the neoconservatives want—have long wanted—and are angling to have Trump start.
Trump should not only not give it to them. He should get rid of them.
In his first term, Trump eventually learned that his national security advisor, John Bolton, represented the antithesis of his “America First” foreign policy goals. Only three months into his second term, Waltz, along with his deputy Alex Wong, are out, hopefully after a similar realization within the administration.
In his role, Rubio should have two options: Carry out the president’s desire for diplomacy and peacemaking regarding Iran as the secretary has thus far dutifully done regarding the Ukraine–Russia conflict—or get fired.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
There is no middle ground.
A true “America First” foreign policy and neoconservatism are incompatible. Trump has said that in his first term he wasn’t aware soon enough of who on his staff might be working against him.
At only 100 days in, may he learn even sooner in his second term.
