On November 30, Donald Trump nominated Kash Patel to serve as FBI director. A staunch MAGA activist and loyalist with significant standing in Trump’s orbit, Patel aligns closely with the president-elect on both domestic and foreign policy matters. Indeed, he appears to struggle to pinpoint areas of disagreement with Trump’s agenda.
Patel has consistently advocated for a hardline approach to China and is an unabashed supporter of Israeli interests, often prioritizing them over U.S. considerations. On October 7, marking the first anniversary of the Hamas attack, Patel delivered a fiery interview on Fox News. During the segment, he vowed that the incoming Trump administration would intensify its crackdown on anti-Israeli elements.
We should be side by side [with Israel]…When we are back in power with President Trump…we will shut off the machinery that feeds money into Iran…We need America to wake up and prioritize Israel, and that is not what Kamala Harris is about, we need to bring home Americans and end this war, bring home Israelis, and stand by our number one ally in Israel, and people need to wake up on November 5.”
A relative political outsider who has never occupied high office, the media has been awash with profiles of Patel and fevered speculation about what his management of the Bureau could mean in practice ever since. In the process, he has been subject to a level of mainstream scrutiny and criticism that was entirely lacking over recent weeks, as Trump filled his cabinet with a rogue’s gallery of dedicated hawks, hardcore pro-Israeli elements, and characters both unknown and notorious with potential extremist ties and views.
For some, the composition of Trump’s cabinet is a crushing disappointment. On November 9, Trump caused shockwaves when he announced neither Nikki Haley nor Mike Pompeo would be invited to join his administration in any capacity. The news, coupled with comments he made in a late October appearance on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, perked optimism in some quarters that the President-elect’s longstanding anti-war posturing could produce real-world results in Ukraine, if not elsewhere.
In his discussion with Rogan, Trump professed that “the biggest mistake” of his first term was he “picked a few people that I shouldn’t have picked” — “neocons or bad people or disloyal people,” among them John Bolton. Haley was the U.S. ambassador to the UN under Trump and perhaps the most ardent, outspoken Zionist ever to fill the role. She, Bolton and Pompeo — who personally orchestrated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani’s assassination, among other hostile deeds — were widely regarded as the administration’s leading hawks.
Yet, any slight hope that the pair’s absence from Trump’s new White House might herald an influx of some doves and, in turn, a more peaceful shift from the U.S. government was comprehensively dashed when the President’s transition team nominations began rolling in. Now the cabinet is fully stocked, countless millions around the world have urgent and grave concerns about what the future could hold for them, their families, countries, regions, and more.
In particular, Trump’s prospective government can already claim the mantle of the most fervently pro-Israel in U.S. history. This is despite replacing an administration that has done more than any before to accelerate, encourage, and facilitate Israel’s war on Gaza. The prospect that Tel Aviv’s deadly assaults on Gaza and Lebanon will escalate somehow further is now not only very real but seemingly inevitable. However, as we shall see, there are minor rays of hope among the mass doom and gloom.
‘Promised Land’
New Secretary of State Marco Rubio hardly needs any introduction as one of the most pro-war members of the modern U.S. political class. Since his career kicked off in 2000, he has been consistently among the loudest voices on how America’s officially designated enemy states should be dealt with, be that China, Iran, Venezuela, or otherwise. Threats of sanctions, coups, and military intervention are almost a daily staple of his political oratory.
A close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2019, Rubio cosponsored a Senate resolution condemning UN Security Council resolutions designating Jewish settlement expansion in occupied Palestine as a violation of international law. He has referred to Israel’s mass murder in Gaza since October 7, 2023, as legitimate self-defense, claimed Hamas is “100% to blame” for any civilian casualties inflicted by the horrific onslaught, and ominously declared Palestinian resistance must be “eradicated,” as Tel Aviv cannot coexist “with these savages.”
The media has reported that the Trump administration is already concocting plans to “bankrupt Iran” with “maximum pressure” upon taking office. Rubio, who has long called for tightening already crippling sanctions on Tehran, is reportedly at the forefront of this effort, alongside nominated National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, a Pentagon journeyman who previously sat on the House Armed Services Committee. At an event convened by NATO adjunct the Atlantic Council, in October, Waltz bragged:
Just four years ago…[Iran’s] currency was tanking, they were truly on the back foot…we need to get back to that posture.”
Neutralizing Iran has long been touted as a prerequisite for reclaiming Israel’s waning dominance in West Asia. Any measure that destabilizes Tehran—economically, militarily, or politically—diminishes its capacity to curb Israel’s actions, leaving Tel Aviv emboldened to act without restraint. The logic is stark: weakening Iran strengthens Israel. Within the Trump administration, with its hawkish alignment, policies serving this end will likely be met with uncritical endorsement.
Already, Trump has pledged to lift the few remaining restrictions and end delays in the supply of military equipment and ammunition to Israel immediately after his inauguration. This includes an embargo on certain weapons shipments and limitations on various combat-related equipment. This embargo reportedly impacts Israel’s war-fighting capabilities, as its forces struggle with multiple self-initiated active battle fronts, requiring “strict control” over ammunition supply and use.
The pro-Israel credentials of Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Michael Waltz are unquestionable. Yet their fervor for supporting Israel’s controversial policies pales in comparison to some of President-elect Donald Trump’s other nominees. Take Mike Huckabee, the ultraconservative former Arkansas governor and twice-failed presidential candidate, now tapped to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist pastor, wasted no time declaring his intentions. He vowed to publicly refer to Israel in biblical terms, calling it the «Promised Land,» and proclaimed that Jews hold a «rightful deed» to Palestinian territory.
‘American Crusade’
Despite its unwavering consensus on Israel, Trump’s cabinet has been labeled “eclectic” by the mainstream press—and not without cause. Alongside establishment stalwarts like Huckabee and Rubio, Trump has tapped figures long considered political outsiders. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a polarizing figure in his own right, has been nominated for a senior post. Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host and U.S. military veteran, has also emerged from the fringes to claim a role in Trump’s cabinet. Hegseth, who quietly advised Trump during his first term, pushed for the pardons of American soldiers convicted of heinous war crimes—a campaign that, in some cases, was effective.
Hegseth, a contender for Defense Secretary, has made his allegiances to Israel unmistakably clear. He has described Israel’s settler population as «God’s chosen people.» He has openly advocated for transforming Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque into a Jewish-only recreation of the historic Temple Mount, framing such an act as a «miracle.» At a 2018 National Council of Young Israel gala in New York City, Hegseth left no room for ambiguity:
Zionism and Americanism are the front lines of Western civilization and freedom in our world today.”
Such disturbing comments have elicited little media interest since Hegseth’s nomination. However, NPR has chronicled his unsettling array of tattoos, including a Jerusalem cross—a Christian emblem with origins in the Crusades—and the Latin phrase deus vult, often interpreted as a call to reclaim the Holy Land through the slaughter of Muslims. Both symbols have been co-opted by Neo-Nazi groups. Perhaps predictably, Hegseth’s 2020 book, “American Crusade,” brims with incendiary Islamophobic rhetoric.
Another wildcard nomination is Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Concurrently a politician and serving U.S. military officer, for years she occupied a dissident, dovish space on the Democrat left, all along smeared as an Assad or Putin apologist for her anti-war positions. However, she acrimoniously quit the party in October 2022, slamming it as “under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers who are driven by cowardly wokeness” and for purportedly “stoking anti-white racism.”
Gabbard had, by that point, been distancing herself from previously held progressive stances on issues such as abortion and LGBTQ rights, and she has rapidly grown ever more conservative since formally joining the Republican party. Despite her longstanding criticism of U.S. military interventionism, Gabbard effusively supports Israel, opposing any limits on its assaults on Gaza and Lebanon. She has slandered protesters critical of Israel as “puppets” of a “radical Islamist organization,” accusing them of supporting Hamas.
‘Maverick Appointment’
Despite her inflammatory rhetoric and overt support for Israel’s most belligerent policies, Gabbard’s nomination as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) could be a silver lining in Trump’s cabinet. The position wields immense power, coordinating the work of America’s sprawling intelligence apparatus across 18 agencies. Since the announcement, deep anxiety has rippled through intelligence circles on both sides of the Atlantic, with veterans voicing fears about the potential consequences of her leadership.
Trump spent much of his first term at war with the U.S. intelligence community. The President and his supporters quite legitimately accuse the CIA, FBI et al. of seeking to undermine and sabotage his first term in office. On November 24, The Economist forecast—based on interviews with U.S. and European intelligence officials—a “likely” mass exodus from American spying agencies, as many operatives are “fearful of falling foul” of Trump and Gabbard, under whom “spies are on notice.”
Gabbard’s disdain for America’s spy agency alphabet soup was writ large in her April book, “For Love of Country.” She blamed the CIA, FBI, “and a whole network of rogue intelligence and law enforcement agents working at the highest levels” of the U.S. government, in conjunction with “the Democratic National Committee, propaganda media, [and] Big Tech” for America’s most egregious ills. She declared this shadowy nexus “so dangerous that even our elected officials are afraid to cross them.”
Gabbard reserves some of her sharpest criticism for the intelligence community’s role in fueling the Ukraine proxy war, accusing it of laying the groundwork for conflict to benefit defense contractors. “How would their friends in the military-industrial complex make trillions of dollars from the fear they fomented in America and Europe by stoking the fires of the new Cold War?” she wrote. American spies, it seems, are taking her seriously. “We are all reeling,” a “current intelligence official who’s worked through multiple administrations” told TIME magazine following the announcement of her nomination.
Per The Daily Telegraph, the intelligence community in London is likewise “alarmed” by Gabbard’s nomination. The doggedly pro-Ukraine outlet quoted a number of “British defence figures” which slammed the move in the harshest possible terms. Disgraced former MI6 chief Richard Dearlove attacked the “maverick appointment,” lambasting her lack of “experience of intelligence and security.” Elsewhere, former British Army tank commander Hamish de Bretton Gordon angsted that the “special relationship” between Britain and the US “could be impacted.”
The perspectives of Dearlove and de Bretton Gordon are striking, for both have long histories of exploiting the “special relationship” to further London’s ends and bounce the U.S. intelligence and military establishment into war. MI6 chief Dearlove was responsible for cooking up false intelligence that formed the basis of the formal British and U.S. case for invading Iraq. The subsequent Chilcot Inquiry was completely damning of his activities in this regard.
Its report noted that Dearlove personally informed Prime Minister Tony Blair that Baghdad could definitively strike Britain with chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, and this information had been provided to MI6 by an Iraqi with “phenomenal access” to the highest levels of Saddam Hussein’s government. That false claim was central to London’s justification for war and much repeated in the media at the time. In reality, British spies were furnished with the claim “indirectly” by a taxi driver.
‘Perfect Nominee’
More recently, Dearlove was a central figure in Russiagate and a prominent advocate for the credibility of former MI6 operative Christopher Steele and his ‘Trump-Russia’ dossier in the media, despite the document’s self-evident falsity and concerns about its veracity within British and U.S. intelligence circles. Russiagate was clearly intended to ensure relations between Washington and Moscow didn’t improve under Trump, and were it not for the belligerent stance resultantly taken by his administration, the Ukraine proxy war could well have been avoided.
Hamish de Bretton Gordon also played a personal role in pushing for a U.S. war in Syria. He was part of an MI6 operation that smuggled soil samples out of Syria, purportedly to prove the Syrian government’s responsibility for chemical weapons attacks. These samples were later revealed to be falsified. A senior Western source acknowledged in August 2013 that the true aim of British intelligence was to pressure Washington into direct boots-on-the-ground military intervention, ala Iraq.
While that catastrophic outcome was avoided, a supposed government chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018 succeeded in pushing Trump to launch missile strikes against Syria. Leaked documents and independent investigations have since revealed that this incident was staged by British intelligence operatives and their assets. Notably, Gabbard publicly criticized Trump’s response, questioning whether Douma was a staged ruse by the opposition to prolong the conflict at a time when the White House appeared ready to de-escalate.
With Gabbard in the role of DNI, the sway of intelligence agencies over political decisions and the readiness of figures like Rubio, Trump and Waltz to act on dubious intelligence could be blunted. While this may not provide immediate solace to the Palestinians, who remain under constant threat of death and displacement, it could signal a positive shift in the unchecked influence of British and U.S. intelligence on the White House.
These tentative grounds for optimism are somewhat reinforced by Patel’s nomination as FBI director.
As a committed Israel-firster, he comfortably aligns with the rest of Trump’s prospective cabinet, and one might expect that mainstream news outlets eager to advance a pro-Israel agenda would embrace him as a result. Yet the media’s response has been anything but supportive. The New York Times warns that Patel would bring «bravado and baggage» to the role, while The Washington Post branded him a “dangerous and unqualified choice” to lead the Bureau.
The Atlantic, run by long-time pro-Israel activist Jeffrey Goldberg, has intensified this scrutiny of Patel, publishing multiple hit pieces in recent weeks. A November 30 op-ed warned that senior FBI officials «would likely resign rather than serve under Patel, which would probably suit Trump just fine.» The article concluded, «If Trump’s goal is to break the FBI and undermine its missions, Kash Patel is the perfect nominee.» This may well be one of the administration’s core objectives—on top of galvanizing Israel.
Patel has vowed that a future Trump administration would «come after» government officials, intelligence agency leaders, journalists, and other establishment figures he associates with what he describes as the «Russiagate hoax.» It’s hardly surprising that these same factions view his rise—and the broader ascent of a new administration—with trepidation.
Like Gabbard, Patel’s combative disdain for the U.S. deep state offers little solace. His stance does not mitigate, let alone counteract, his Pro-Israel leanings or the Trump administration’s aggressive resolve to ensure that Israel’s actions in Gaza, which human rights groups characterize as a genocide, proceed to their grim conclusion.
Yet, one might argue that the left could find itself in a stronger position to oppose the ongoing atrocities in Gaza under a Republican administration that makes no pretense of sympathy for the Palestinians. Unlike Democratic governments, which weaponize progressive rhetoric to attempt to shame solidarity activists and progressive dissidents into supporting its doggedly pro-Israel actions, the Trump administration’s overtly pro-Israel stance strips away such falsifications. And the possibility that entrenched institutions like the CIA and FBI—longstanding adversaries of progress and justice in America—might finally face accountability for their actions could be a potential silver lining. Watch this space.
Feature photo | Illustration by MintPress News
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist and MintPress News contributor exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. His work has previously appeared in The Cradle, Declassified UK, and Grayzone. Follow him on Twitter @KitKlarenberg.
