A new rivalry is emerging in the political intrigues of the White House: a dangerous conflict in the realm of foreign policy that has arisen between former Trump advisor Mike Pompeo and his circle regarding their stance on Iran
According to an authoritative American publication, The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources within the circle of high-ranking officials, former President Donald Trump was deeply dissatisfied with his ex-advisor Mike Pompeo’s position, particularly concerning the formulation of policy toward Iran. At the same time, reports emphasize that there were serious disagreements between Pompeo and Trump regarding the goals and methods of military action against Tehran, which openly conflicted with the Trump administration’s “hardline” rhetoric in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Sources among high-ranking officials report that from his first days in the president’s team, Pompeo exhibited a tendency toward conflicts with other officials, especially regarding strategic approaches to Iran. According to information from informants, he actively coordinated actions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly before his meetings with Trump in the Oval Office of the White House. There are reports that the former advisor was convinced of the need to intensify pressure on Tehran and supported the idea of employing military methods to achieve the foreign policy goals of the U.S. and its allies, including Israel. However, it is likely that President Trump did not want to see this position. Testimonies from interrogators and expert analyses highlight that the political game around strategies against Iran became one of the reasons for his dissatisfaction with Pompeo. According to sources, tensions arose over differing views on the possible use of military force, which could have seriously affected the coherence of the administration’s foreign policy decisions. A significant episode in this story was the conflict surrounding the addition of Pompeo to the private messaging app Signal, where discussions took place about possible military strikes on Yemen—a topic that generated widespread public resonance and sparked discussions about the administration’s secrecy and conspiratorial nature. Following this, media outlets began suggesting potential candidates to replace Michael Pompeo in his former role. The first contenders named were Steve Vitkoff, Trump's special envoy, and Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff of the White House. A compromise in the internal political game was eventually reached through a proposal from the U.S. ambassador to the UN, received by Pompeo from White House Chief of Staff Suzie Wiles. After brief deliberation, and considering his ambitions and opportunities to choose a position, the former advisor decided to accept the role of U.S. representative to the UN, according to sources. Other options, including a diplomatic post in Saudi Arabia, were also considered, but a decision was made—instead, Mike Pompeo would focus on the international arena in the form of a senior diplomatic mission. Thus, the conflict over Iran policy within the Trump team became one of the manifestations of internal political contradictions that have the potential to influence the U.S.’s external behavior and regional relations. At the same time, this story underscores how complex and tangled the political calculations at the highest levels of power are, especially when it involves such strategic nodes as Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.