Deep State Drives U.S. Toward

(Analysis) Steve Bannon, in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, delivered a stark blockessment of America’s current trajectory.

He claims a powerful, entrenched “apparatus”—what he calls the deep state—now overrides presidential authority, pushing the United States toward direct military conflict in the Middle East and Ukraine.

Bannon argues this system, rooted in intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, and major corporate and financial interests, is actively sabotaging Donald Trump’s signature policies: ending “forever wars,” securing the border, and reshaping global trade to bring manufacturing home.

Bannon details how Trump’s electoral coalition, which united working-clblock Americans, tech entrepreneurs, and economic nationalists, now faces coordinated efforts to break it apart.

He blockerts the apparatus is most obsessed with maintaining U.S. involvement in endless wars, particularly in the Middle East. According to Bannon, the sudden escalation with Iran—marked by Israeli strikes on nuclear sites and rapid U.S. military deployments—was no accident.

He claims it stemmed from decisions made deep within Washington, often without clear public debate or direct presidential control. Recent facts support Bannon’s concerns.

As of mid-2025, the U.S. has surged its troop presence in the Middle East to between 40,000 and 50,000, the highest since Trump’s first term.

Three carrier strike groups have been moved from the Pacific to the North Arabian Sea and Red Sea, providing air cover for Israeli operations and supporting strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen.

The Pentagon’s own National Defense Strategy now emphasizes “America First” and “Peace Through Strength,” but the reality on the ground shows a pattern of military escalation that appears driven by operational inertia and internal resistance, not a clear endgame.

Bannon points to specific interference in Trump’s peace strategies. He accuses elements within the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Pentagon, and senior Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Mike Pompeo of undermining efforts to negotiate settlements in both Ukraine and the Middle East.

He highlights how U.S. intelligence and targeting support enabled complex Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, suggesting that without American involvement, such operations would not be possible.

Bannon also criticizes conservative media and Republican figures who, while publicly supporting Trump, promote policies that keep the U.S. entangled in foreign wars and globalist trade arrangements.

This internal resistance is not speculation. Official sources and investigative reporting confirm that a persistent group inside the federal bureaucracy has acted to blunt or delay Trump’s major initiatives, often justifying their actions as protecting national interests.

Bannon Warns of Military-Driven U.S. Foreign Policy Risking War

The Pentagon and intelligence community have gained increasing autonomy, with field commanders and agency heads sometimes acting ahead of or outside civilian diplomatic timelines.

This dynamic has led to a situation where military posture and defense industry priorities drive foreign policy, not the other way around. Bannon warns that unless Trump’s coalition confronts and dismantles this apparatus now, the U.S. will slide into a catastrophic war in the Middle East.

He says this conflict would not only destroy Trump’s political base but also derail efforts to secure the border and repatriate manufacturing jobs—core promises of the MAGA movement.

He calls for exposing those inside government and the Republican Party who work against these goals, insisting the next 200 days will decide whether America remains a sovereign republic or becomes trapped in endless conflict.

The facts on the ground echo Bannon’s alarm: U.S. forces are at their highest regional levels in years, military blockets are positioned for rapid escalation, and official policy do***ents show a country caught between stated restraint and actual buildup.

The outcome of this internal struggle will determine whether the U.S. continues on a path of global intervention or pivots to a more restrained, mercantile approach.