One thing about this situation is that makes me reassess my impression of "deep state / military industrial complex".

Both Trump and Tulsi Gabbard (pre election) was running a "no war" platform with heavy connotation of "deep state" and wars only serving special interests (including Israel). My impression was that this outsider aspect really bought many libertarian and non-hawk republicans vote.

Hell, Gabbard was even branded Russian parrot after trying to talk to Assad, running as an independent after that. She even disagreed about this strike not even 3 months ago, 1 month ago and few days ago, with Trump.

But now they support it. They all just lied during election is the most probable reason but at least Gabbard have been saying same thing since 2016 election, 8 years, and all it took was Israel striking to go "aight let's go".

Is there just some information available to high official positions that makes you turn 180 on your opinion as soon as you get access to it, or what.

US foreign policy is uniparty: anti-war candidates enter office, face pre-existing security briefs, donors, contracts, and pro-Israel politics, and align with the existing consensus.

Much of the money fueling election campaigns flows from entrenched defense contractors, lobbyists, and think tanks. That momentum has more predictive power than what the current "Commander-in-chief" claims they'll do.

Campaign rhetoric may change, but policy is harder, and this is another reason to believe that US democracy is a veneer.

Seemingly a public facing opinion is not some deeply held belief for your platform, but simply a means to an end (IE votes from libertarians). Actual short term and long term objectives mean making decisions that go against your publicly stated stances - a political risk that could alienate your base, but clearly not impacted by the fact that you’ve claimed the opposite for many years.

Voter polls?