Understanding America First
Iran isn't a "foreign entanglement" ... yet
The Iran War that began this past weekend is not, contrary to conventional wisdom, inconsistent with Trump’s “America First” approach to foreign policy.
The prevalent misreading of that approach elides it with a pacific position on foreign entanglements. If you google “Trump foreign entanglements” you find dozens of examples in the mainstream media that boil down to: “Trump goes to war despite [emphasis added] professed aversion to foreign entanglements.” The thing is, “going to war” and “foreign entanglements” are not the same thing.
Vietnam — now THAT was a foreign entanglement
As the Vietnam War dragged on in the late 1960s many in both parties began to voice their objections. That opposition was most commonly grounded in prudential terms: which were that there was no endgame, that the war wasn’t worth the tremendous cost in resources and lives, that the threat of Communism in southeast Asia was overblown, and that the conflict was tearing the country apart.
Some in the Democratic party in particular went further, arguing both that our opponent (the Soviet Union) was no worse than we were and that pacifism was worthy in and of itself.
To be absolutely clear, this last position is nothing like that of the America First movement. In fact the forebears of America First in the Vietnam years supported the war in concept, if not in execution.
Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump
The roots of the America First position are deeply embedded in our political culture, going back to the early 19th century and Andrew Jackson.
A Jacksonian foreign policy, as it came to be known, mixes a suspicion of foreign alliances and extended military entanglements with a determined defense of American interests, especially economic ones. And it decidedly embraces a fighting spirit if American interests are at stake, although it has no grand idealistic visions and is not pacific in the least.
No one could have said it better in the current context than Trump acolyte Lindsay Graham (as quoted today on PBS):
“America First is not isolationism … America First is not head in the sand. America First is not to get entangled. We’re not going to have any boots on the ground in Iran. But America First is to kill people who wish us ill with a record of trying to destroy us in the region, to take them off the table.”
An accurate understanding of America First provides the framework to fit in pretty much everything the current president does in the national security realm.
America First is:
Pro-military: Trump has regularly proposed increases in defense, to the point where spending is flirting with $1 trillion and the administration suggesting a whopping 50% increase for FY2027. (See this by Katina Slavkova of the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown.)
Suspicious of foreign alliances and international organizations: To say the president has deemphasized our NATO alliance is the understatement of the decade. He has also moved to discontinue or downscale our involvement with other international organizations (the World Health Organization being Exhibit A).
Determined to press our economic interests: Tariffs fit in here as the main tool for pursuing American interests around the globe.
In favor of the aggressive use of the military: The toppling of the Venezuelan president and the earlier bombing foray in Iran are classic examples of exerting military power decisively when American honor or interests are at stake.
Which brings us to the current conflict
How does the war with Iran square with an America First foreign policy?
Trump’s justifications have been typically less than consistent. On the one hand he’ll talk about “regime change” and the “once in generations” opportunity Iranians have to build the country they want, and on the other provide the through line to the June 2025 attack on Iran, the goal for which was simply to use overwhelming force to prevent a terrorist-supporting power from building nuclear weapons.
Importantly, unlike Bush in Iraq, he hasn’t made grand claims of democracy-building or promises of being responsible for setting up a new regime. If he sticks to his guns, so to speak, and all goes well, once Iranian capabilities are destroyed presumably he’ll call it a win and get out.
Might he have miscalculated?
Of course his plan, such as it is, could be a terrible miscalculation. If Iran’s forces are not easily degraded and destroyed, conflict could spread with casualties mounting in Israel and across the Middle East. If we can’t rid Iran of its capabilities in relatively short order we could be stuck in a conflict with no clear endgame — a foreign entanglement if you will.
But make no mistake: it is far from surprising and not inconsistent with America First that Trump wields his commander-in-chief powers aggressively. Whether he is doing it wisely enough to avoid a protracted no-win situation — that is really the question.