We have examined this issue in an interview with Seyyed Meysam Yaqoubi Moqaddam, an expert on international affairs, from the perspective of its causes and consequences.

This expert on international affairs, in an interview with the SCFR Online website, responded to the question, “Recently, we have witnessed widespread dismissals at the highest levels of US military command. How are these developments interpreted, and what reasons lie behind them?” stating: “The recent dismissals within the US military, particularly during Trump’s return to the White House, essentially represent a continuation of the consolidation and purging policies he has pursued from the outset.”

Ideological Purging within the US Military

He added: “Trump and Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of War, are intensely focused on purging the military of individuals who might oppose their policies and appointing in their place those who are entirely loyal to Trump’s directives. This process has intensified in recent months, and the dismissal of generals and senior military officials—including General Randy George, Chief of Staff of the Army—symbolizes this approach.”

In response to the question, “Why is the removal of General Randy George so significant, and what factors have made it a contentious issue?” he noted: “This general was a seasoned and distinguished officer who, over years of service in the US military, played effective roles in various conflicts. He joined the military in 1982 and had participated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, his dismissal without any formal charges—particularly at a time when the United States had just launched a new war—is highly questionable.”

Yaqoubi Moqaddam added: “This action is not merely a routine dismissal; rather, it must be analyzed within the framework of a structural transformation within the military. Policymakers in the White House and the Pentagon seek to place key positions in the hands of individuals who are fully aligned with Trump’s ideology and policies. In reality, these developments are perceived more as an effort to purge the military of non-aligned viewpoints.”

Pursuit of Discriminatory Policies

Regarding the point that “some reports indicate political pressures in the promotion process of US military personnel. To what extent has this issue influenced the dismissal of generals?” he stated: “Undoubtedly, these pressures have played a significant role in these developments. In recent months, Pete Hegseth exerted considerable pressure to remove four officers from the list of promotions to one-star general; these individuals included two Black officers and two female officers. This action, which clearly departs from meritocratic principles, faced opposition from General Randy George and Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll, but Hegseth ultimately succeeded in removing these individuals from the list—a matter that generated widespread repercussions and numerous criticisms.”

Referring to the dimensions of this decision, he said: “Such promotion-denial policies, particularly when targeting female officers and minorities, reinforce suspicions of racial and gender discrimination within the military. At the same time, many analysts believe that this trend stems less from professional criteria and more from political will to eliminate individuals who are not aligned with the Trump administration’s policies, especially those who support diversity-oriented approaches.”

Yaqoubi Moqaddam continued: “Since his arrival at the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth has prioritized countering what he terms ‘the influence of diversity-oriented policies.’ This stands in contrast to the policies pursued during the Biden administration, which aimed to elevate the status of women and minorities within the military. Now, Hegseth and his like-minded colleagues are attempting to reverse this trajectory and steer the military’s structure toward forces with conservative viewpoints aligned with Trump.”

The Politicization of the US Military

He emphasized: “For Hegseth, the paramount concern is ensuring that the military is placed under the control of individuals who are entirely subordinate to Trump’s directives and avoid any form of opposition. This approach contradicts the traditional philosophy of the US military, which has always emphasized independence from political currents and the principle that it should not become an instrument of any particular party.”

This expert on international affairs, responding to the question, “What impact do these developments have on the US military?” clarified: “In the long term, these changes could weaken the military’s command capacity and strategic decision-making. The US military requires experienced personnel, but replacing them with individuals selected solely based on political loyalty could adversely affect the military’s overall performance. If officers prioritize adapting to political considerations over focusing on national interests, this issue will entail serious negative consequences for US national security.”

He continued: “This trend could signify the transformation of the military into an ‘armed wing’ for advancing Trump’s and the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement’s political objectives—a matter that contradicts the professional principles and neutrality of the US military and could also negatively impact this country’s military strategies and international engagements.”

In response to the question, “Given these developments, what outlook do you envision for the future of the US military and this country’s foreign policy?” he stated: “It appears that these changes constitute part of a grand project to transform the US military into an instrument serving Trump’s policies. The ultimate objective is to shape a military entirely loyal to his ideology. This trend could lead to heightened tensions in international relations, particularly vis-à-vis countries such as Iran and China. Whereas the US military has traditionally been regarded as an independent institution, this independence is now at risk of erosion.”

Yaqoubi Moqaddam concluded by emphasizing: “These developments could create new threats to global security, as under such circumstances, the military might transform from focusing on defensive missions into an instrument for advancing domestic political objectives—a matter that will have significant consequences for US foreign policy and the international order.”