For years, Donald Trump’s supporters – and even some of his critics – have pointed to his relative aversion to large-scale military interventions as a sign that he was not, as the political establishment feared, another neoconservative warmonger. His “America First” rhetoric, his frequent denunciations of “endless wars,” and his critiques of military-industrial adventurism positioned him, at least superficially, as a president interested in peace. Even his initial distance from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent months appeared to signal a potential break with the typical pro-Israel hawkish consensus that dominates American foreign policy.

But now, with Trump openly embracing escalatory strikes against Iran — and seemingly indifferent to the catastrophic potential of such actions — the mask has slipped. Trump’s self-styled image as a peace-seeking realist has collapsed. He is, in fact, what his most ardent opponents always suspected: a man drawn to power, domination, and, perhaps, even the allure of war itself.

The Peace Dove Myth

History often wrestles with complex characters. There are those who argue that even Adolf Hitler made multiple peace proposals to the UK before the total descent into global war. Some “Hitler-Versteher” (those who claim to “understand” Hitler) point to Churchill’s uncompromising stance as the spark that made continued war inevitable. Whether or not one buys into these revisionist claims, the point remains: initial gestures toward peace do not absolve a leader of the wars they eventually choose to fight.

Trump, like Hitler in some of these revisionist readings, can no longer hide behind his past peace postures. The truth emerges not in the words a leader says when it is politically convenient, but in the choices they make when history calls. Trump’s latest moves — authorizing aggressive strikes against Iranian targets, openly floating the use of bunker buster bombs — reveal his fundamental worldview: might makes right.

Some may argue that this is simply his “peace through strength” philosophy, a Reaganite tactic to bluff adversaries into submission. But Trump is no longer posturing; he is escalating. The Iran strike is not a demonstration of strength for the sake of negotiation — it is a deliberate act of war that risks plunging the region, and possibly the world, into a broader conflict.

The Subconscious Attraction to War

There is a disturbing psychological layer to all of this. Could it be that Trump, on some level, is drawn to the chaos, to the grandeur of historical violence? Just as Hitler’s apocalyptic visions seemed to magnetize the destruction that ultimately consumed him, Trump appears increasingly comfortable playing with the fire of global war. Perhaps this is not merely strategy gone wrong but the manifestation of a darker impulse — an unconscious death drive masquerading as leadership.

Trump’s rhetorical concern for “white Christians” — particularly in Ukraine and South Africa — and his conspicuous silence on the mass suffering in Gaza, lays bare another dimension: a selective moral compass that aligns too neatly with ethno-nationalist sympathies. When Palestinians are bombed by one of America’s closest allies, Trump finds no words of protest. When Iran is bombed, he finds no hesitation. His critics have long accused him of latent white supremacist leanings; his actions now lend credence to these charges in devastating fashion.

The Netanyahu Factor

One of the more perplexing recent developments was Trump’s apparent cooling toward Netanyahu. Some saw this as the beginning of a break from the Israel-aligned foreign policy that has dominated U.S. strategy for decades. But that break has not materialized. If anything, Trump’s military choices now seem tightly intertwined with Israel’s most hawkish ambitions. Whether out of political calculation, ideological alignment, or under-the-table pressure, Trump has once again placed the United States in the position of acting as Israel’s iron fist.

It is worth pondering whether Trump believes he is orchestrating some higher strategic game. He has previously remarked that sometimes “you have to let the kids fight before you can separate them.” Is it possible that he imagines unleashing limited war with Iran could lead to some grand geopolitical realignment? Perhaps he thinks Israel, when faced with Iran’s full might, would finally accept a negotiated peace. But this is a deeply flawed and dangerous notion. If that were his plan, he would likely be pushing Israel to take more direct risks rather than stepping in with American firepower.

More plausibly, Trump is simply pursuing the age-old fantasy of demonstrating overwhelming American strength, all the while ignoring that this path leads only to endless cycles of retaliation, death, and eventual decline.

A Glimmer of Hope

The most hopeful outcome from this grim trajectory is that genuine anti-war voices within the American right — figures like Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and Candace Owens — might seize this moment to form a meaningful third party. A party that is truly “America First,” but also free from the corrupting influence of foreign lobbies and neoconservative warmongers. Whether such a movement could succeed is uncertain, but the need for it is clearer than ever.

Closing Thought

If freedom and peace are the values we claim to cherish, then America’s current path — one led by a man who now reveals himself as a war hawk with fascist instincts — is a dead end. Ironically, the much-maligned authoritarian leaders of Russia and China may offer their citizens more stability and more genuine sovereignty than the U.S. does under the weight of its own military-industrial dogma.

It is a bitter pill to swallow, but history may judge Trump not as the dove he pretended to be, but as another authoritarian seduced by the irresistible pull of destruction.

My prompt was:

I would like to have an article of between 800 to 1000 words about the new situation now that Trump has revealed himself as a war hawk. The title could be something like “Sadly we must conclude: Trump is Hitler after all”. Many so called “Hitler-Versteher” point to the fact that Hitler was making many many peace proposals to the UK which Churchill was declining. They use the proofs of Hitler’s initial dovishness to show that maybe Churchill was the one who wanted the war. Another comparison is that both Churchill and Hitler where to some extent funded by zionist jews. Where we may note that zionist jews definitely have been using worldwide chaos (including world war) to their benefit throughout their history. It is obvious now that Netanyahu has Trump thoroughly in his pocket even though just a few weeks ago Trump seemed to put Netanyahu at a distance. The fact that Trump has spoken out many times against the killing of white christians (in the Ukraine war and in South-Africa) and never said anything about the genocide in Gaza shows that he is latently a White supremacist racist just as his enemy’s have always said. If he had been a true peace dove, he would have spoken out against Israel and on behalf of the Palestinians just as Obama did (and Jimmy Carter). Now he tries to juggle dropping bunker buster bombs on Iran with being a peace president after all. See the public statement he made after dropping the bombs. On the one hand one could argue that he is simply following his peace through strength philosophy and really thinks that Iran will throw in the towel after this. But he must at least realise that there is also a chance that this attack will really plunge the world into world war 3. So my argument is that there must be a subconscious layer in his attitude where he also has a dark side that is attracted to death and utter devastation. And that just like Hitler under the “law of attraction” his “dark” soul is getting the hell that his subconscious is projecting. Of either of them were true Ghandi-style peace doves…. such a descent into world war wouldn’t have happened to either of them. Maybe the article could be closed of with a tiny possibility that Trump is going after something else: he said for the Ukraine conflict and for the Iran conflict that sometimes one has to let two kids fight before pulling them apart. So could it be that he wants Iran to unleash all it has in order that Israel may come to realise that it has to come to terms with this huge nation. But that is really a far fetched possibility because if that were his philosophy here, he would have enticed Israel to throw more (American) bombs, instead of having the USA fulfil the ultimate neocon wet dream: bomb Iran. The only positive thing in all of this is that real MAGA America first peace doves like Tucker Carlson, Majory Taylor Green, Matt Geatz and Candace Owens may pull together and hopefully create a third party that will be free of Israeli bribery and demonic theology. Militarily it also looks like the Trump is Hitler analogy could be true…. because Trump has picked a fight with forces now, who will not bend to the might of the fascist genocidal USA – Israel coalition and who ultimately will be victorious. Since what is the value of freedom and free speech with fascist leaders like this. One would prefer being led by benign autocrats as Russia and China have it, a million times. Looking forward to your article and maybe make a title image for the article as well!

A cautious note from Chatgpt before writing the article:

Thank you for your detailed request. I can certainly help write a nuanced, sharply critical opinion article that explores this idea, though I will need to reframe some parts to ensure the piece is factually responsible, avoids conspiratorial leaps, and doesn’t unintentionally promote anti-Semitic tropes or unsupported historical claims.

It’s crucial to critique Trump (or any leader) robustly without reinforcing narratives that have historically been used to justify bigotry. I will write the article with sharpness, critical edge, and historical depth, while carefully avoiding problematic generalizations.

Here’s the draft of the article: