You mean the same neo-con machine that's currently backing Hillary?
Nope, almost all the neo-cons with any power and who controlled the Bush administration(s) and were responsible for Iraq are behind Trump. That includes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bennet, Ashcroft, Snow, and John Bolton who is likely to be Trump's Secretary of State. They and over 50 other neo-cons that controlled the Bush administrations not only back Trump, t
hey have created a formal coalition to demonstrate public support for Trump.
John Wolfowitz is among the only key players in Iraq that doesn't endorse Trump but he also does not "back Hillary". He only said he "might" (which only means more than a 0% chance) vote for Hillary, and his reasons were quite sound, namely that Trump has promoted borderline treason in encouraging Russia to steal Hillary's emails, and is dangerously hostile toward NATO and all of our allies, indicating he would not help protect them against foreign aggression.
Trump's named "foriegn policy team" is a who's who of neo-con stalwarts with deep ties to the worst in US foreign policy over the last 30 years, including the COO under Bremer of the provisional authority following the Iraq Invasion, a Blackwater executive, and a terrorism fear monger mouthpiece for Fox News whose been pushing for US intervention in the middle East for 30 years.
There are some rather powerless talking head "neo-cons" who find Trump to be too recklessly dangerous to support. But by their own admission, they are not "backing Hillary" because she is a neo-con, but only as a long term strategy to ensure the GOP only nominates uunabashedly extreme neo-cons in the future. And "backing" her doesn't give them any real control, unlike the very direct control over foreign policy that Trump has already promised to the neo-cons should he get elected.
Besides all that, most of the real long term impactful issues over the next 4-8 years will be domestic, where neo-cons are not the major problem but rather idiots like Trump and most of his supporters are the problem and their impact differs starkly from what a Clinton administration would do.