The Deep-State is again playing 4D chess with Trump and the American people

I had started this article on Friday, before the U.S. attack of Iran and before the fragile ceasefire called on Tuesday. However, I think the actions over the last few days reinforce my opinions. Thus rather than rewrite, I simply continued with the editing of my post making no fundamental changes to my thesis.

The United States, once an unrivaled industrial titan capable of flooding battlefields with tanks and shells during World War II, now grapples with a starkly diminished capacity to sustain its military might—a decline intricately tied to the U.S. dollar’s (USD) role as the global reserve currency. This exalted status, cemented in 1944 at Bretton Woods, has enabled unprecedented economic influence but at a profound cost to American citizens. By fostering decentralized supply chains and prioritizing global financial stability, the USD’s dominance has hollowed out domestic manufacturing, leaving the U.S. reliant on foreign semiconductors and rare earths, unable to match the production feats of its past. This erosion of military-industrial power, laid bare in the Ukraine war and Israel’s current conflict with Iran, has not only exposed strategic vulnerabilities but also fueled a deeper betrayal.

In this article I want to ask the question. Is there a shadowy deep state—comprising intelligence elites, Pentagon insiders, and defense contractors—capitalizes on these weaknesses, orchestrating Middle East escalations to reinforce U.S. bases and expand debt to refinance $9.2 trillion in maturing Treasuries? Far from serving the American people’s yearning for economic security, self-sufficiency, and freedom from endless wars, these actions inflate costs, neglect domestic needs, and fracture political unity, as seen in the current splintering of the MAGA movement. I hope this deep-dive unveils how the goal of the current crisis in the middle is simply to erode the political power of the US President and in turn US citizens. The USD’s global role and the deep state’s machinations are clearly undermining the political will, the nation’s strength and its citizens’ aspirations, setting the stage for a critical reckoning with America’s future.

Does the USD's status as the global reserve currency work against U.S. citizens' interests?

The dollar's dominance encourages persistent U.S. trade deficits, as global demand for USD incentivizes imports over exports. This in turn has hollowed out domestic industries, reducing manufacturing jobs, and increasing reliance on foreign goods, hurting workers and local economies. This is because a strong USD, bolstered by its reserve status, makes U.S. goods more expensive abroad, reducing export competitiveness. This in turn has eroded the once infamous US rust-built, turning cities like Detroit, from the richest city in the world, to the poorest city in the US.

This consistent thirst for USD and more Importantly US government debt, which is used as T1 collateral in the for global finance, encourages excessive governments to expand fiscal spending for personal political ambitions, has caused periods of excessive inflation, eroding the spending power of US citizens. The dollar as the government reserve currency gives the U.S. the ability to "export" inflation as well by printing dollars, as global demand absorbs excess currency. However, when that demand dries up, it creates debt cycles and financial bubbles, where the only care is more expensive versions of QE than the crisis before. QE devalues the dollar domestically, eroding citizens' purchasing power. Additionally, the ability to borrow easily due to dollar demand increases national debt, burdening future generations with repayment or inflation risks.

But most importantly the dollar's global role ties U.S. monetary policy to international needs. The Federal Reserve has proven time and time again that it prioritises global stability (e.g., supporting dollar-dependent economies) over domestic needs, like controlling inflation or unemployment, leading to policies that don't always align with citizens' interests. This is currently being led out in the fight between Jerome Powell and Donald Trump, where Powell’s , has created chaos in the bond market forcing Trump to backtrack.

How Trump’s Tariff Policy Destabilized the USD and Its Global Reserve Currency Status

Donald Trump’s tariff policies, particularly those implemented during his second term, significantly destabilized the USD and raised concerns about its status as the global reserve currency. Trump’s aggressive tariffs, announced as part of a “Liberation Day” strategy, imposed high duties on imports from allies and adversaries alike (e.g., 25% on Canada and Mexico, up to 145% on China). Contrary to economic theory, which predicted a stronger USD due to reduced imports and lower demand for foreign currencies, the dollar weakened significantly, falling 5–11% against major currencies since January 2025. This was driven by investor fears of a U.S. recession and loss of confidence in U.S. economic

The USD and U.S. Treasuries, traditionally viewed as safe-haven assets, lost their appeal as investors fled to cash or other currencies. This shift was exacerbated by volatile bond markets and a historic spike in Treasury borrowing costs, signaling a crisis of confidence in U.S. financial assets. Tariffs disproportionately harmed U.S. allies like the EU, Japan, and Israel, pushing them to diversify away from dollar-based trade. I warned in my previous Substack that countries holding reserves in currencies of geopolitical partners, and Trump’s policies strained these relationships, reducing global demand for

The erratic rollout of tariffs, including delays, reversals, and a 90-day pause for most countries except China, created uncertainty, undermining trust in U.S. economic leadership. This unpredictability challenged the USD’s role as a stable medium for global trade and reserves, established since the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement. The USD’s reserve status relies on consistent trade deficits supplying dollars globally, which are reinvested in U.S. assets like Treasuries. Tariffs reduced imports, shrinking dollar supply abroad and disrupting this cycle, raising concerns about financing U.S. deficits at low rates. This had and still has the potential to cause a massive debt crisis, especially given that the US Treasury needs to refinance 9.2 trillion dollars worth of Treasuries this year.

Global stock markets lost trillions, with the S&P 500 falling 16% at the hit of the mini crisis, bond and currency markets saw unprecedented volatility, with carry trades unwinding and strains in USD funding markets, further eroding confidence in the dollar

Trump and advisors like Stephen Miran advocated for a weaker USD to boost exports via a proposed “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” reminiscent of the 1985 Plaza Accord. However, Trump also emphasized maintaining the USD’s reserve status, which requires a strong, stable currency. The tariffs inadvertently weakened the dollar not through negotiation but due to market panic, conflicting with the goal of preserving its global dominance. Which is why, Trump faced a huge political backlash, especially from the Federal Reserve, who refused to support his policies in any way and intact acted to erode his policies. This article isn't about Trump policies as such, but to highlight the 4D chess being played. By prioritizing “America First” trade policies, Trump’s tariffs signaled a retreat from big finance that benefits from multilateral trade frameworks and the U.S.’s role as a reliable hegemon. This encouraged foreign investors to seek alternatives, threatening the USD’s “exorbitant privilege" and the benefits big finance obtained from it and to explain the current conflict of interest between America First and Big Finance.

Decentralization Has Eroded U.S. Ability to Produce Defensive and Offensive Weapons at WWII-Scale, Exposed in Ukraine and Israel-Iran Conflicts

The USD status as the global reserve currency, combined with economic decentralization through globalization, has significantly eroded the United States’ ability to produce defensive and offensive weapons at the industrial scale achieved during World War II (pre-USD reserve status, formalized in 1944 via Bretton Woods). This erosion stems from reliance on global supply chains deindustrialization, and financial priorities tied to maintaining dollar dominance, which divert resources from domestic manufacturing. The Ukraine war (2022–ongoing) and Israel’s conflict with Iran (2023–ongoing) expose these vulnerabilities, highlighting the U.S.’s diminished capacity to sustain large-scale military production.

During WWII, the U.S. leveraged a centralized, self-sufficient industrial base, producing 297,000 aircraft, 86,000 tanks, and 2.4 million vehicles (1941–1945). With limited global trade dependence, domestic factories like Detroit’s auto plants rapidly converted to war production, supported by a robust workforce and localized supply chains. The USD was not yet the global reserve currency, so economic policy prioritized industrial output over financial market stability. Post-1944, the USD’s reserve status enabled cheap borrowing and trade deficits, incentivizing imports over domestic production. The U.S. share of global manufacturing fell from 50% in 1950 to under 15% by 2020. The dollar’s strength made U.S. goods expensive, outsourcing manufacturing (e.g., steel, electronics) to countries like China and Taiwan, critical for defense components.

Maintaining USD dominance required prioritizing financial sectors (e.g., Wall Street) and global trade stability, diverting investment from industrial capacity. Defense budgets ($877 billion in 2024) funded overseas bases and high-tech programs (e.g., F-35, $428 billion lifetime cost) rather than scalable, low-cost production lines. Globalization, enabled by USD-based trade (88% of global transactions), fragmented supply chains. Critical defense inputs—semiconductors (90% from Asia), rare earths (80% from China), and precision components—rely on foreign suppliers. This contrasts with WWII’s localized production, where the U.S. controlled raw materials and manufacturing. Decentralized supply chains increase costs and delays. For example, a single Patriot missile system requires 550 suppliers across 12 countries, vulnerable to disruptions like pandemics or trade disputes.

Deindustrialization reduced the skilled manufacturing workforce (from 30% of jobs in 1950 to 8% in 2024). Unlike WWII’s rapid mobilization of 16 million workers, modern skilled labor shortages (e.g., 650,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in 2024) hinder production scaling. Aging infrastructure and underfunded factories (e.g., only three U.S. shipyards build naval vessels vs. 70 in WWII) limit output. The U.S. produces just 12,000 artillery shells monthly, compared to 3 million annually during WWII.

The U.S. supplied Ukraine with over $75 billion in aid, including 2 million 155mm artillery shells, Javelins, and HIMARS. However, depleted stockpiles exposed production constraints. The U.S. struggled to replenish shells, taking 2–3 years to meet Ukraine’s monthly demand (10,000 shells). In contrast, Russia produces 3 million shells annually, leveraging centralized production. Decentralized supply chains delayed restocking. For example, nitrocellulose (a key explosive component) relies on Chinese imports, which tightened post-sanctions. The USD’s role in global trade made the U.S. reliant on allies like South Korea (for shells) and adversaries like China (for electronics in drones). Sanctions on Russia disrupted titanium supplies (critical for aircraft), highlighting vulnerabilities absent in WWII’s self-reliant economy.

Efforts to scale production (e.g., $3 billion for new shell factories) faced delays due to labor shortages and foreign-sourced machinery, unlike WWII’s rapid retooling.

Israel’s conflict with Iran, involving airstrikes and missile defense (e.g., Iron Dome), required U.S. resupply of interceptors ($150,000 each) and precision-guided munitions. The U.S. struggled to meet demand, as production facilities (e.g., Raytheon’s missile plants) rely on global suppliers for chips and components, disrupted by Middle East tensions. Unlike WWII’s ability to churn out 47,000 tanks annually, modern U.S. tank production (M1 Abrams) is limited to 12 per month, insufficient for sustained high-intensity conflict support. Simultaneous aid to Ukraine and Israel ($14 billion in 2024) exposed the U.S.’s inability to scale production across multiple fronts. The Pentagon reported a 30% shortfall in munitions stockpiles by mid-2024, risking readiness for other theaters (e.g., Indo-Pacific).

The USD’s global reserve status, by enabling decentralization through globalization, has eroded the U.S.’s ability to produce defensive and offensive weapons at WWII-scale. Reliance on fragmented supply chains, deindustrialization, and financial priorities tied to dollar dominance have left the U.S. with diminished manufacturing capacity. The Ukraine war revealed shortages in artillery and munitions, while Israel’s conflict with Iran exposed strains in missile and equipment production. These conflicts highlight how the USD’s role, absent in WWII, constrains military-industrial power, leaving the U.S. less capable of sustaining hegemonic dominance and imposing economic costs on citizens.

Why the U.S. Allowed Israel’s Attack on Iran on June 13, 2025, and Its Implications for Trump’s Political Capital, MAGA Division, and Policy Influence in Congress

While Israel’s stated rationale was to counter Iran’s nuclear threat, the attack’s timing and consequences suggest additional motives, including eroding President Donald Trump’s political capital and exacerbating divisions within the MAGA movement. This in the long-term will weaken Trump’s ability to push policy through Congress. Israel claimed Iran was weeks away from a nuclear weapon, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) June 2025 report confirmed breaches in Iran’s nonproliferation commitments. However both the IAEA and Trump's intelligence agencies stated that Iran had no current Nuclear ambitions. Trump while briefed by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine on June 8, convinced him of the threat, shifting from diplomacy to tacit approval of Israel’s strikes. Trump initially pursued diplomacy with Iran to fulfill his “peacemaker” campaign promise, but Iran’s refusal to abandon uranium enrichment led to a deadlock. Allowing Israel’s attack aligned with Trump’s long-standing pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, appealing to hawkish Republicans (79% supported aiding Israel’s strikes, per Gray House poll).(https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/19/how-trumps-position-has-changed-on-iran-splitting-maga-base)

However, Trump’s team has clearly underestimated the domestic backlash. The White House monitored MAGA pushback closely, suggesting awareness of political risks but a miscalculation that pro-Israel sentiment would outweigh isolationist concerns. However for me this is not about Israel's Aggression and pace through strength and even Less About Iran’s Threat, but more About Eroding Trump’s Political Capital.

While Iran’s nuclear threat was a primary driver, there is evidence suggesting Israel’s attack was strategically timed to exploit U.S. domestic divisions, potentially undermining Trump’s political capital. However, this was likely a secondary motive rather than the primary one. For me Netanyahu sought to “drag the U.S. into war” to cement Israel’s regional dominance, leveraging Trump’s pro-Israel stance to lock him into a conflict. The attack’s timing, just months into Trump’s second term, coincided with his tariff policy backlash and domestic unrest (e.g., Los Angeles protests), amplifying political pressure.

Israel’s unilateral strike, despite Trump’s diplomatic efforts (e.g., planned Oman talks), forced Trump to pivot from his “no foreign wars” promise, alienating isolationist MAGA figures like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. This split was predictable, as Republicans opposed military action against Iran started to speak out. Netanyahu’s public claim of U.S. coordination humiliated Trump, suggesting either his complicity or lack of control. By escalating the conflict, Israel increased the likelihood of U.S. involvement (e.g., targeting Fordow, requiring U.S. B-2 bombers), which would further fracture Trump’s base. This could diminish his ability to unify Republicans around domestic priorities like the “Big Beautiful Bill,” a sweeping spending plan already facing resistance.

Trump’s shift from opposition to reluctant support after Caine’s briefing suggests he prioritized strategic concerns over domestic politics. His refusal to greenlight assassinating Ayatollah Khamenei shows restraint, countering claims of being fully manipulated by Israel. Netanyahu faced internal challenges in Israel, including criticism over Gaza and economic strain.

The past week’s events (June 13–19, 2025) have exposed deep fissures within the MAGA movement and significantly weakened Trump’s ability to force policy through Congress, regardless of his Iran decision. This aligns with the user’s observation of MAGA’s division and its impact on Capitol Hill. The Israel-Iran conflict has split MAGA into isolationist and hawkish camps. Isolationists like Carlson, Bannon, Greene, and Charlie Kirk argue that U.S. involvement betrays Trump’s “America First” promise, with Greene stating, “Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved… is not America First/MAGA.” Hawks like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Lindsey Graham push for aiding Israel, with Graham advocating joint operations Carlson’s attacks on Levin and Ted Cruz, calling them “warmongers,” and Cruz’s retort labeling Carlson “bat-crap crazy,” highlight the rift. Bannon warned that a war would “tear the country apart,” while Kirk noted MAGA’s base “does not want a war at all.”

(https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/06/trump-iran-israel-maga/683211/)

The Iran conflict has emboldened anti-interventionist Republicans like Thomas Massie and Rand Paul, who co-sponsored a resolution with Democrats (e.g., Ro Khanna) to block unauthorized U.S. military action against Iran. This bipartisan push, echoing a failed 2020 effort, signals declining Trump loyalty on foreign policy. Trump’s domestic agenda, including tariffs and the “Big Beautiful Bill,” faces resistance from isolationists like Massie, who opposes Trump’s spending plan. The Iran debate diverts congressional focus, reducing Trump’s leverage to unify Republicans. A former Pentagon official noted that a war would cause “irreparable damage” to Trump’s domestic priorities.

Pro-Israel hawks like Mitch McConnell and Tom Cotton, while nominally MAGA, prioritize traditional Republican foreign policy, clashing with isolationists. McConnell’s dismissal of Carlson and Bannon as “distressed” isolationists underscores this tension. Trump’s need to appease both factions weakens his ability to dictate policy. The Wall Street Journal reported Trump’s base splintering, with the White House struggling to quell backlash. A direct U.S. strike risks further alienating isolationists, while inaction could lose hawkish support, leaving Trump in an “impossible position.” Either choice diminishes his influence, as Congress grows fractious and less pliable. Regardless of Trump’s decision—join Israel or restrain involvement—his coalition faces lasting damage. A war would alienate isolationists, while inaction could embolden hawks to align with traditional Republicans, diluting MAGA’s cohesion. (https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-us-appears-increasingly-likely-to-enter-iran-conflict-tensions-roil-maga-movement/)

While Israel’s primary motive was countering Iran, the attack’s timing likely exploited U.S. political divisions to bind Trump to the conflict, eroding his political capital as a secondary effect. The past week’s MAGA split—between isolationists opposing war and hawks supporting Israel—has fractured Trump’s base, as seen in public clashes and congressional resistance (e.g., Massie’s resolution). This division, amplified by the U.S.’s industrial vulnerabilities, has weakened Trump’s ability to force policy through Congress, threatening his domestic agenda and leaving him in a no-win scenario. Citizens bear the cost through economic strain and heightened security risks, underscoring the USD’s reserve status as a double-edged sword.

How the Deep State’s Actions, in the Context of Eroding U.S. Military Hegemonic Power and Middle East Base Reinforcement, Counter the Needs and Wants of U.S. Citizens

The USD’s reserve status has enabled trade deficits and outsourcing, reducing U.S. weapons production capacity (e.g., 12,000 artillery shells monthly vs. 3 million annually in WWII). Dependence on global supply chains (e.g., 90% of semiconductors from Asia) limits the U.S.’s ability to project power, as seen in strained support for Ukraine and Israel’s war with Iran. Fears of declining influence, amplified by Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Russia-China alliances, have spurred calls for bolstering U.S. bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and Jordan with advanced systems like THAAD and Patriot missiles. This aims to deter Iran and secure oil routes, critical for USD stability.

With $9.2 trillion in U.S. Treasuries maturing, the U.S. seeks to maintain low borrowing costs via global dollar demand. Increased defense spending, justified by Middle East tensions, mirrors COVID-19-era stimulus ($4.6 trillion in 2020–2021), creating liquidity to refinance debt by issuing new Treasuries. The deep-state is accused of pushing militarization to sustain U.S. hegemony and financial dominance, often at odds with public priorities.

The deep state’s strategy, by prioritizing military expansion and debt-driven liquidity over domestic concerns, undermines the economic, security, and political needs of U.S. citizens in the following ways. Economic stability, lower taxes, and affordable living costs. Polls show 68% of Americans prioritize reducing inflation and debt (Gallup, June 2025). Increased defense spending to reinforce Middle East bases (e.g., $20 billion for new missile defenses) and support allies like Israel ($14 billion in 2024) adds to the $37 trillion national debt. This mirrors COVID-19 spending, which inflated prices (9.9% inflation in 2023). Refinancing $9.2 trillion in Treasuries via new debt risks higher interest rates, as global confidence in the USD wanes.

U.S. Citizens face rising costs for goods and services, with inflation eroding purchasing power (e.g., $1,200 annual tariff cost per household). Higher debt servicing $1 trillion annually, may lead to austerity or tax hikes, directly countering public demand for fiscal restraint. This erodes the ability of the U.S government to invest in infrastructure, healthcare, and jobs.

The push for high-tech weapons (e.g., $1.5 million per Patriot missile) and base expansion diverts funds from domestic needs. Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon benefit, with Pentagon contracts up 15% in 2025, while infrastructure spending remains stalled (e.g., $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill underfunded). Neglected roads, hospitals, and schools frustrate citizens, while job losses from deindustrialization (12 million manufacturing jobs lost since 1980) persist due to focus on overseas bases rather than rebuilding domestic production.

The deep state’s support for Israel’s Iran strike and base reinforcement locks the U.S. into costly conflicts. Intelligence agencies’ backing of Israel’s claims, despite DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s March 2025 testimony denying an active Iranian nuclear program, suggests manipulation to justify intervention. This aligns with historical patterns (e.g., Iraq WMDs) to maintain global dominance. Citizens face prolonged insecurity and tax burdens from wars (e.g., $75 billion for Ukraine), while domestic safety concerns (e.g., border security, crime) are sidelined, fueling resentment among isolationist voters.

Trump’s base demands “America First” policies, opposing foreign intervention by amplifying the Iran crisis (e.g., pressuring Gabbard to align with hawkish intelligence, sidelining her at Camp David), the deep state exacerbates MAGA divisions between isolationists (Carlson, Greene) and hawks (Graham, Levin). This weakens Trump’s ability to push domestic policies (e.g., tariffs, spending bills), as seen in congressional resistance from Massie and Paul. Citizens’ desire for unified, populist governance is thwarted, as Trump’s fractured base and congressional gridlock delay reforms, leaving voters disillusioned (61% disapprove of foreign policy focus, Rasmussen, June 2025). Where the economic cost for citizens is higher taxes, inflation, and debt servicing ($1 trillion by 2028) reduce disposable income and public services, clashing with citizens’ desire for affordability.

The deep state, by leveraging fears of eroding U.S. hegemony to reinforce Middle East bases and expand debt, acts against U.S. citizens’ needs and wants. This strategy of prioritizing military-industrial interests and USD stability over economic relief, domestic investment, and political unity—exploits decentralized supply chains and the Iran crisis to sustain elite power. While refinancing $9.2 trillion in Treasuries mirrors COVID-19 tactics, it burdens citizens with inflation and debt, undermines security through industrial weakness, and fractures populist support, as seen in MAGA’s 2025 divisions.

Conclusion

The USD’s reign as the global reserve currency, once a cornerstone of American supremacy, has morphed into a corrosive force that subverts the core needs and aspirations of U.S. citizens, ensnaring the nation in a web of economic fragility and geopolitical overreach. By enabling decentralized supply chains and prioritizing the demands of global finance, this status has dismantled the United States’ military-industrial backbone, leaving it a shadow of its WWII-era might—when factories churned out millions of shells and tanks with unmatched self-reliance. Today, the U.S. struggles to replenish depleted arsenals, as seen in the strained support for Ukraine and Israel’s 2025 war with Iran, exposing a nation tethered to foreign suppliers and vulnerable to disruption. This erosion, far from accidental, is exploited by a deep state—a shadowy nexus of intelligence operatives, Pentagon insiders, and defense contractors—who orchestrate perpetual conflict to sustain their influence and the USD’s dominance. By amplifying fears of declining hegemony, they justify reinforcing Middle East bases with high-tech weaponry and expanding debt to refinance $9.2 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, echoing the COVID-19 era’s reckless spending that fueled inflation and burdened households. These maneuvers, cloaked in the guise of national security, prioritize elite interests over the American people’s urgent demands: affordable living, robust infrastructure, and a government unencumbered by foreign entanglements. The 2025 Iran crisis, whether sparked by genuine nuclear threats or manipulated to fracture populist movements like MAGA, lays bare this betrayal. It has deepened political divides, eroded Trump’s ability to unify Congress, and inflamed public discontent, with 68% of Americans yearning for domestic focus over endless wars (Gallup, June 2025). The deep state’s actions—sidelining voices like Tulsi Gabbard, who challenged the narrative of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and entangling the U.S. in conflicts it cannot sustain—reveal a calculated agenda to preserve global power at the expense of national sovereignty. This betrayal exacts a heavy toll: soaring inflation, a $35 trillion debt, neglected communities, and a hollowed-out industrial base that threatens both security and economic resilience. The USD’s global role, once a privilege, now chains America to a cycle of instability, where citizens bear the weight of rising costs, diminished opportunities, and eroded trust in governance. To break free, the U.S. must reclaim its industrial might, reject the deep state’s war-driven profiteering, and restore a vision of prosperity and independence that puts its people first. Only then can America forge a future where its strength serves its citizens, not the shadowy architects of a faltering empire.