Follow us on social

google cta
Marco_rubio_25003151043

Trump eyeing hawks and neocons for top foreign policy/NatSec roles

Rubio, Waltz, Stefanik : what do they all have in common?

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

News Monday that President-elect Trump was eyeing three hawks for top slots in his administration has put a bit of a damper on the headiness that restrainers on the right were feeling over weekend news that Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo would not be joining the administration.

By 8 p.m. Monday, there was confirmation that Elise Stefanik, arch-defender of Israel who once worked for the neocon outfit Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and Bill Kristol's Foreign Policy Initiative, is Trump's pick for UN ambassador.

China hawk Rep. Mike Waltz, who spent much of his time on Capitol Hill this year saber rattling about Chinese military and spies in our backyard, and calling for a "new Monroe Doctrine" and a lot more military build-up to confront them, is Trump's pick for National Security Advisor. He worked in the George W. Bush Pentagon and for Vice President Dick Cheney as a counterterrorism advisor.

Add to that, he resisted Trump's efforts to get the U.S. military out of the 20-year war in Afghanistan, and like many uber-hawks in Congress, has been open to bombing Iran.

To top it off for appointment watchers, news hit that Trump is going to tap Senator Marco Rubio, longtime hawk who spent the better part of his Capitol Hill career promoting neoconservative foreign policy positions, particularly on Iran and the Middle East, for Secretary of State. He was a big defender of the war in Iraq until he was running for president in 2016 and Trump had made it unpopular.

Some point out that he recently voted against Ukraine aid, and has said the war in Ukraine must end in a negotiated settlement. However, on Israel and Iran he has never wavered. Rubio, who was reportedly close to late-pro-Israel billionaire Sheldon Adelson and other big neocon donors, has supported illegal settlement building in the West Bank and has suggested that the U.S. may have to go to war with Iran over its nuclear program. On the current conflict, he has defended Israel's every move in the war in Gaza and Lebanon. He has warned that Iran wants to make Israel "an unlivable place."

He has always been a staunch opponent to any U.S. deal that would hem in Iran's nuclear program, including the JCPOA.

Later Monday, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a pro-Israel evangelical Christian supporter of Israel who has been a vocal supporter of illegal settlements in the West Bank, was named by Trump as the next U.S. ambassador to Israel. By night it was announced that FOX News personality and Iraq/Afghanistan war vet Pete Hesgeth is Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense.

The appointments of Stefanik, Waltz, Huckabee, and Hesgeth have been announced by Trump. As of Monday afternoon, Rubio's nomination had yet to be confirmed. But the day's news has left observers with the feeling that it is déjà vu all over again.

"Trump often deviated from the views of his top advisers. And I know @DonaldJTrumpJr and others are doing what he said below," said Glenn Greenwald, pointing to a X post reply by Don Trump Jr. about keeping neoconservatives out of the administration. "But Trump's last 3 appointees - Elise Stefanik, Mike Weltz (sic), and Rubio - are war hawks fully aligned with the worst prongs of bipartisan DC consensus."


Top photo credit: Senator Marco Rubio (Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons)
Senator Marco Rubio (Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons)
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.