Despite narratives about religion or ideology, the core of many international conflicts is economic control over critical resources like oil. A nation's reaction to attacks on its oil infrastructure versus its leaders reveals the true economic nature of the fight.

Despite ideological or religious motivations, sustained conflict is impossible without economic support. Even highly motivated groups cannot fight without money to buy weapons and maintain their infrastructure, revealing economics as the fundamental, inescapable driver of global power dynamics and war.

Advocating for non-interventionism while funding a $1.1 trillion military is a core contradiction. Such a budget is only justifiable for a nation prepared for global intervention, not one focused solely on domestic issues. This exposes a fundamental flaw in the political ideology.

The US foreign policy establishment is not driven by partisan ideology but by strategic interests. It will fund contradictory groups—from right-wing Ukrainian nationalists to progressive artists—if they serve the immediate goal of destabilizing a region to secure economic or military advantages.

A toxic, symbiotic relationship exists between GOP voters, right-wing media, and elected officials. Each element reinforces the others, creating an incentive structure where politicians and media figures must cater to the base's appetite for Trumpism to survive, regardless of their personal beliefs.

After 1991, without the Soviet Union as a counterbalancing power, US foreign policy shifted from pragmatic containment to an interventionist, 'neocon' crusade. This ideology of a 'responsibility to protect' led to costly, destabilizing 'forever wars' in the Middle East, a departure from the more measured Cold War approach.

Trump's 'America First' platform was not a random occurrence but a predictable backlash against the US establishment's post-Cold War excesses. Policies like 'hyper-globalization' and 'forever wars' created domestic discontent and a loss of faith in traditional foreign policy, which Trump successfully exploited.

Investing in a hypersonic weapons company, once a career-ending move in Silicon Valley, is now seen as a crucial act of deterrence. This rapid cultural reversal, catalyzed by geopolitical events, signifies a profound sea change in the tech industry's values and its relationship with national security.

Despite Trump's stated goal of ending "stupid wars," U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has aligned more closely with the neoconservative and Israeli lobby's long-term goal of remaking the region. This suggests their influence is a more reliable predictor of U.S. action than the President's own rhetoric.