America’s national identity in the Middle East is being tested by the war in Gaza, escalating tensions with Iran, and political polarization at home. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich frames the conflict as a civilizational battle between the West and what he calls a “genuinely evil regime” in Iran.
The former Speaker, who maintains a significant presence in Washington, DC and continues to hatch ideas, defends the Trump administration’s realignment of U.S. alliances in the region. He also champions the Abraham Accords, and asserts that moral clarity—not multilateral diplomacy—is essential to U.S. security and preserving the foundations of Western civilization.
Gingrich is author of 45 books, including the recent bestseller Trump’s Triumph: America’s Greatest Comeback. It offers a sweeping account of America’s role in the Middle East, President Trump’s emerging doctrine, and what he sees as a moral struggle for Western civilization. With decades of experience and an unfiltered style, Gingrich pulls no punches.
“I like what I'm doing,” Gingrich says. “I like being a citizen. I like thinking about ideas, and I like expressing myself and trying to help shape the national dialog.”
Gingrich traces the evolution of U.S.-Israel relations, recalling how, in the early days, “Israel emerged largely on its own, survived without any help at all from the U.S. for a long time.” He cites the Yom Kippur War as the turning point: “The Soviets had really organized an all-out assault on Israel’s survival… Nixon felt the U.S. had to step in… and I think from that point on, we came closer and closer.”
Presidential leadership, Gingrich believes, is often essential in overriding bureaucratic inertia. He notes that when the embassy was finally moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, “none of the dangers… the riots in the streets, the outrage among other countries… none of that occurred. It turned out people didn’t care. But it meant a great deal to Israel.”
Gingrich sees Trump’s approach to the Middle East as a major historical shift. “Jared Kushner developed a speech… in 2016 that was very visionary and positive.” That vision led Trump to make Saudi Arabia his first overseas visit, a move that Gingrich believes reshaped regional dynamics: “The Saudis were much more frightened of Iran than they were of Israel.”
He points to the Abraham Accords as proof of the Trump administration’s diplomatic success and criticizes the Biden administration for abandoning the initiative. “The entire diplomatic establishment… had said for a long time that until you solve the Palestinian problem, nothing can get done,” Gingrich says. “Trump comes along and says… right now, let’s do what we can to get to peace.”
To Gingrich, Iran remains the core threat. “It’s a genuinely evil regime,” he says. “It has launched over 400 efforts to kill Americans.” He recounts Trump’s order to kill Qasem Soleimani: “It sent a jarring signal to the Iranian regime that Trump was powerful–and wasn’t particularly afraid.”
Gingrich points out how Trump’s military actions have been precise: “Trump was very clear… this was a limited surgical strike aimed specifically at the nuclear program,” he says, and adds, “We hope that the next step will be a step toward peace.”
He believes the Iranians are attempting to maintain appearances without provoking full retaliation: “They fired missiles at the American base in Qatar, but they told us in advance… they want to be able to tell the people of Iran, ‘we’re fighting back.’”
The real issue, Gingrich insists, is ideological. “There are no moderates,” he says of the Iranian regime. “They are all hardliners.” He ridicules those who suggest otherwise: “I think the liberals in general and much of the establishment… saw The Lion King and thought it was a documentary,” he jokes. “They behave as though lions and zebras sing and dance together,” he continues. And then comes his Newtonian zinger: “Those of us who are realists say, you know, lions actually eat zebras.”
Asked why so many young voices on the right opposed the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, Gingrich responds bluntly: “There are a handful of right-wingers who are pro-Putin and anti-Semitic… probably more favorable to Iran than they are to Israel or the United States.”
But he insists the majority of Americans support the effort: “78% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats agree that Iran is a threat and… are very comfortable with us bombing the Iranians until they give up their weapons.”
Trump’s approach, in Gingrich’s view, blends moral clarity and strategic realism. “If somebody actively goes out to build nuclear weapons… and they keep chanting ‘Death to America,’ you have to wonder if the people who are for appeasing them are just insane, or if they’re masochists, or if they have a death wish.”
Gingrich likens Trump and Netanyahu to Reagan and Thatcher, calling their relationship one of “moral necessity.” He says Trump “believes that Israel’s very existence depends on crushing Hamas and defeating Iran.” The threats, he says, are existential: “You cannot exist with a force on your border who says ‘not a single Jew will remain.’”
In Gingrich’s eyes, this is a war for civilization. “You cannot have Western civilization without a Judeo-Christian tradition,” he says. “One of the great threats to Western civilization is the rise of a secular modernism… that repudiates all the lessons of the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
Asked why he has always supported the U.S.-Israel relationship, Gingrich’s answer is rooted in history and morality. “Coming out of the Holocaust… you had to ask yourself, should there be a place the Jews can live in safety? If yes, the only place that made sense was Israel.” He points to Israel’s survival against overwhelming odds and its brilliance in operations like Entebbe–let alone the more recent operation in Iran–as proof of moral clarity.
Newt, as he is best known in policy circles, ends with a stark choice: “Do you think the Jewish people have the right to have a homeland?” If you do, he says, “and if the cost of living in peace is defeating people who are dedicated to destroying them, do you think that’s a moral necessity?” What does Newt think? “My conclusion is that it is,” he says.
