Michael DiMino Is An Uncontroversial Pentagon Pick

Do you actually want things to change?

Americans certainly seem to think they do. That’s why they voted for Donald Trump instead of the incumbent, and also for Trump instead of the GOP consensus of 2012 as represented by his primary challengers. There is a vast national nausea at the way things have been going for quite a while; there is a majority sense that all has not been going well. Changing business as usual means, concretely, giving offices to new people with new approaches. 

Michael DiMino, a CIA and Department of Defense alumnus, is the Trump pick to be deputy assistant secretary of defense with the Middle East portfolio. He’s facing a dogpile from the usual suspects because he does not think the Middle East is the priority theater for the United States. Jewish Insider on Tuesday published a piece on the “alarm” of “pro-Israel Republicans” at DiMino, followed by a laundry list of things he has published or said in public appearances that suggest he believes the U.S. should reduce its exposure in the region. (We note blandly that the writers did not bother to tally the occasions on which DiMino has praised and voiced support for Israel.)

The quotes pulled are not radical. The writers note that DiMino says Iranian conventional forces do not pose a threat to the U.S. Well, OK. Do they? We invite the reader to make a survey of the Iranian navy; it won’t take long. (This is also common sense. If Iranian conventional forces are all that, why do they rely on proxy forces in the region? Why are they incapable of defending themselves from quasi-regular Israeli air strikes?) The writers note that DiMino said the Iranian missile attack in April 2023 seemed restrained. Well, OK. Was it? That attack was in fact preceded by extensive back-channel diplomatic communication by third-party nations, particularly Turkey. If telegraphing the move before it is made isn’t restraint, we’re not sure what is. (This also is common sense. If Iran had gone for broke, the response from Israel would have been devastating and perhaps existential.) The writers note that DiMino supports withdrawing American troops from Syria. In the article cited, he supports his argument by observing that American troop presence in Syria affords Iran a leverage point. Well, OK. Doesn’t it? The writers note that DiMino has said further air strikes against the Houthis are futile. Well, OK. After a decade of ongoing Saudi, American, Jordanian, and Israeli air strikes against the Houthis, none of which dislodged them from their perch in Aden, does that seem like such a bad bet? The article continues for quite a while in this vein. 

While one may disagree with these arguments, they are completely reasonable and mainstream, and, indeed, in many instances constitute a bare recitation of facts. They also happen to align with the president’s public thinking on the subject, which may in fact be why DiMino was chosen for the position, rather than some sinister plot concocted by twisted, Israel-hating viziers behind the Donald’s back. 

Trump has made it clear since the golden escalator that, in his eyes, American involvement in the Middle East has been expensive, destructive, and divorced from American national interest. He tried to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Syria. His tools of choice in the Middle East have been cruise missiles and diplomacy, not boots on the ground. Maybe he’s wrong, but he is trying something different from several generations of failed American foreign policy. Further, most Americans voted for him. Unsurprisingly, he feels he has a mandate to staff his administration with people who agree with him. Shocker.

We’re hardly unbiased—the piece on DiMino characterizes our own publication as “isolationist.” But propagators of the piece have gotten basic facts wrong: such as that DiMino was once an employee of the Quincy Institute. Getting basics wrong should call into question the recommendations of those who would like to apply the most dated and discredited litmus tests. Further, it may be worth considering that the American people are on to something. The Carter Doctrine made sense when it was penned. Today, the U.S. is energy self-sufficient, and even a net exporter. The U.S. has an interest in maintaining the freedom of sea lanes in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, but only a modest amount of U.S.-directed and -originating commercial traffic uses them; rather, it is Europe that is primarily hurt by naval threats and the consequent shipping disruption in that part of the world. Maybe the Europeans should shoulder the burden of keeping those lanes free. The U.S. also has an interest in suppressing Islamic terrorism and, relatedly, preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon. These goals can be plausibly met without troops on the ground. 

Everyone is getting what they were promised. Trump promised support for Israel to the pro-Israel portion of the coalition; the removal of sanctions on Israel and the restoration of the Houthis’ terrorist designation has followed. Trump promised a ceasefire in Gaza to the Arab American portion of the coalition; lo and behold, a ceasefire cometh. He promised DOGE to the fiscal hawks, massive subsidies to tech companies, tariffs to protect American manufacturers, support for labor in negotiations with management, and so on. He is delivering on those promises, even when they are contradictory, which is an unusual but promising mode of doing politics in 2025. Why should the part of the coalition that believes in ending the waste of blood and treasure in the sandbox be the crowd left out in the cold—particularly when they appear to have the sanction of the American people?