President Trump Has a Consequential Decision Before Him
Will the president join Israel’s military campaign against Iran? That’s the question that currently looms as American forces, including multiple carrier groups, destroyers, and refueling tanker aircraft, mobilize in the Middle East. The U.S. remains in a defensive posture (though, similar to our relationship with Ukraine in the war against Russia, we are already providing support to Israel), but the military could go on offense at any time at President Trump’s command.
Though Trump is clearly trying to preserve a space for negotiations—on Wednesday he told reporters, “Nobody knows what I’m going to do”—he seems to be shifting toward using Israel’s successful airstrikes to what he perceives to be his advantage. As U.S. politicians use “we” when discussing Israel’s campaign, Trump has demanded “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” He has even hinted at the possibility of assassinating Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader since 1989 (when presented with that option in the past, he’s turned it down).
Very soon he may decide to help Israel bomb the Fordow nuclear facility that’s buried deep under an Iranian mountain, which will likely take U.S.-supplied bunker-busting bombs to destroy. Seeing Israel’s impressive opening salvo against Iran may prod him to join its war against Iran. For the president, perhaps the perception of success is equal to loyalty.
Questions of war need to be considered with prudence and wisdom. Given the complex nature of this unfolding geostrategic situation, President Trump should listen to good counsel before making a highly consequential decision. As he talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and radio show host Mark Levin, he should consider advice from those who are wary of U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts, such as Vice President JD Vance and other like-minded individuals in his administration. And debates should be had by our elected representatives in Congress as well, a body that has typically ducked its responsibilities when it comes to war in recent decades.
Those who are advising Trump need to make arguments based on what’s best for U.S. interests—not particular theological claims that politics is inadequate to sort out. It is a serious problem when political arguments are shut down a priori, for republican government demands nothing less than debating the means and ends of U.S. foreign policy. Especially in light of the chaos brought about by failed interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the possible ramifications of joining Israel against the Iranian regime need to be taken very seriously.
Though polls are mixed on whether Americans support the U.S. joining Israel’s war, there has been an obvious avalanche of criticism online. This is happening especially among those who have been the president’s most fervent supporters, including former Trump aides and those in the military. For a campaign that has taken the online space so seriously—the vice president, after all, was just on Theo Von’s podcast—this backlash should enter into Trump’s calculus. It would be a shame for the Trump coalition, which has the potential to be unbeatable in the years ahead, to suddenly crack up because of a perception that Trump reneged on a point of high principle—and right as an America First foreign policy seems to be attracting more adherents.
Those in Congress who are supplying Trump with the most hawkish advice should have at least some awareness of the history of the Iranian people before bombs are launched. Basic facts like the population of Iran and its ethnic makeup should be known by anyone who craves intervention. Which individual or faction would take over if the mullahs are wiped away? Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who was overthrown in 1979, has been in exile for decades. Does he truly have any significant backing inside the country?
A vacuum at the top level of a nation’s political leadership is a frequent cause of dissension, violence, and calamity. Though the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was applauded at the time by most Western countries, Libya in the intervening years has descended into disorder and violence. Multiple civil wars have erupted as different factions vie for control of the country, and average Libyan citizens face crime, economic turmoil, and government by force.
Regarding the prospect of toppling the Islamic Republic of Iran, as one senior Trump administration official put it, “It’s the Ayatollah you know versus the Ayatollah you don’t know.” As our tour of the Middle East over the past couple of decades has demonstrated, getting rid of bad men without a plan swiftly leads to chaos.
Filling Out America First Foreign Policy
The knock-down, drag-out fight that’s currently taking place within the Trump coalition over the president’s decision on Iran points to the fact that more work needs to be done to formulate a positive vision for an America First foreign policy. At this point, it’s more about vibes than a coherent vision. This is not intended as pure criticism, since breaking away from the failed foreign policies of the past was always going to take time. Despising bellicose regime change and nation-building, along with questioning the benefits of the liberal international order, are all good instincts—but more is needed.
Michael Anton, who is now ensconced at the State Department, formulated the basic principles of a Trump doctrine in a piece for Foreign Policy in 2019. As he noted, Trump’s “foreign policy doesn’t easily fit into any” of the schools we’re used to discussing. This, Anton says, “has caused endless confusion.” Trump is not a “neoconservative or a paleoconservative.” Neither is he “a traditional realist nor a liberal internationalist.” “The same goes for the fact that he has no inborn inclination to isolationism or interventionism,” Anton writes, “and he is not simply a dove or a hawk.”
For Anton, Trump’s foreign policy can be boiled down to four essential points: America putting its interests first, as every country should, a recognition that the liberal international order has reached its sell-by date, consistency in safeguarding American sovereignty, and a rejection of seeking to “homogenize the world,” as was symbolized by the rainbow flag flying at our embassies across the Middle East.
There are more principles that can be added to the foundation Anton has supplied.
Contrary to some on the New Right, being rigidly “anti-war” in principle is simply not in step with the platform Trump ran on during his three most recent campaigns for president. Or with how he acted during his first term in office. Trump authorized a limited cruise missile strike on a Syrian air base, accelerated a military campaign against ISIL, and ordered the assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani.
Clearly, Trump is not categorically opposed to intervention. While diplomacy using strong speech, which usually gives way to finding middle ground, seems to be Trump’s modus operandi, escalation remains a live option.
For example, JD Vance explained on X that Trump has historically held that Iran should not have nuclear weapons (he’s said the same about North Korea, which already has them). Whether or not the gearing up of Iran’s enrichment program, which Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also noted during testimony earlier this year, directly translates to Iran making nuclear warheads is an open question (as is how far along that program actually is). But it’s logical to assume that should diplomacy fail, intervention is on the table, especially if Trump can lean on a partner to do most of the heavy lifting.
Out is the moralistic crusader sentiment that has accompanied the foreign policy of both Democrats and Republicans in recent decades. In is a pragmatic approach that secures U.S. interests through a range of options, some of which will at times flout the principles taught by the various schools of foreign policy. On a fundamental level, Trump seems to view foreign policy as buttressing a strong domestic policy, which was the historic stance for American presidents before the interventionism of the early Progressive era.
Other questions that should be at the forefront of an America First foreign policy are how our current alliances should be prioritized and how the structures that undergird them should be utilized. While some alliances are teetering and others are no longer useful, everything must be assessed according to how it helps the U.S. transition to a multipolar world where a revanchist China is the main threat to our interests. We must use all the tools at our disposal as we shift to a more restrained yet nimble foreign policy that’s fit for the 21st century.
The U.S. must wisely wield power to secure the safety and happiness of the United States and its citizens in a world that looks far different than it did at the end of the Cold War. Caution should be the watchword when we are considering taking any military action against another nation. Meddling in the affairs of other countries for light and transient causes is the path to destruction.
In this pivotal moment for our country, I pray that President Trump listens to the most thoughtful voices around him and prioritizes America’s interests above all else.
