In March, a private chat on Signal involving several high-profile figures, including Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg and then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, raised eyebrows. The group discussed plans concerning military actions in Yemen, which sparked significant media attention. Critics focused on how a journalist like Goldberg ended up in such a conversation, questioning the competence of the Trump administration.
Goldberg, known for his critical views of Trump, has a history of supporting neoconservative narratives. His presence in the chat suggests a network among neoconservatives who often oppose Trump’s desire for a more peaceful foreign policy. Waltz, who had connections with Goldberg, was recently relieved of his duties as national security advisor and has been nominated for a role at the United Nations.
The discussion within the chat revealed a divide in Trump’s foreign policy team. On one side, figures like Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth advocate for diplomacy and compromise, especially regarding Iran. On the other side, Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio represent a more aggressive stance, favoring military action and skepticism towards Iran’s nuclear program.
Recent reports indicate that some Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, share this hawkish view, pushing for regime change in Iran. This reflects a broader trend among certain politicians who seem eager for military intervention, despite the lessons learned from past conflicts.
As Trump enters his second term, he faces the challenge of balancing these conflicting views within his administration. He previously learned the hard way about the dangers of surrounding himself with advisors who do not align with his vision. The upcoming months will be crucial for Trump to assert his foreign policy goals and determine who he wants advising him on these critical issues.
