Whatever happened to America First
Whatever happened to ‘America First’?
MADRID - “America First” was meant to be simple. Donald Trump promised restraint abroad and clarity at home. The United States would reduce unnecessary commitments, avoid “endless wars”, and focus on its own national interests. Yet the war with Iran raises an unavoidable question: if America truly comes first, why does US policy appear to follow the strategic priorities of others?
This confrontation did not arise from a sudden Iranian attack. It did not begin with a direct strike on US territory. Instead, escalation followed Israel’s determination to degrade Iran’s regional deterrence. What started as an Israeli strategic project has become, in practice, America’s war. The contradiction is stark: a president elected on resisting foreign entanglements now commits US forces to a conflict largely defined by the strategic logic of another state. From Tehran’s standpoint, Israel sets the agenda and Washington provides the means.
The first public indication of this dynamic came in a revealing comment from Secretary of State Marco Rubio. On March 2, he said, “We knew there was going to be an Israeli action … we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces … and we knew that if we didn’t act preemptively, we would suffer higher casualties.” Rubio’s words implied that US strikes were designed to manage the consequences of an Israeli decision, not to respond to a direct Iranian threat. In effect, he described Washington acting because Israel was already moving.
For a president whose credibility rests on America First, this was an awkward moment. Senator Angus King captured the issue during a Senate hearing: “Have we now delegated the most solemn decision … the decision to go to war … to another country?” Trump insisted he had “forced Israel’s hand,” but his explanation clarified little. Rubio’s comments revealed the essential truth: the United States was following the strategic lead of one of its closest allies.
This realignment of initiative and execution sets the stage for a conflict that has begun to unravel long-standing assumptions about power, credibility, and alliance.
Strategic initiative and American alignment
The campaign against Iran did not occur in a vacuum. Israeli leaders have long argued that confronting Tehran’s strategic capabilities is essential for the regime’s security. Their doctrine is clear: Iran’s regional alliances and deterrent forces constrain Israeli options. Weakening Tehran’s capacity is central to preserving Israeli strategic advantage.
The United States entered this framework, but Washington’s own objectives have remained unclear. Early statements framed the strikes as a response to imminent threats. Later comments broadened the rationale to include degrading Iran’s missile capabilities and diminishing its regional influence. These objectives reflect Israeli priorities more than immediate American security interests.
The result is a campaign shaped by external
strategy, with Washington supplying the primary military capacity. American casualties have already occurred, though officials have not released full figures. The absence of transparent reporting feeds the perception that US forces are exposed in a conflict whose goals and costs remain ambiguous. The human toll is partly obscured, even as officials warn of further losses, reinforcing a sense that the United States is deeply entangled in a confrontation defined elsewhere.
Iran’s response has followed its own strategic logic. Tehran has employed asymmetric means to target infrastructure and economic assets across the region. The battlefield now includes sites far beyond the immediate theatres of Iranian strikes. These patterns underscore the limits of conventional military superiority in an era of networked regional conflict.
The economic and strategic consequences are increasingly visible. Oil prices have surged, US forces remain exposed across multiple countries, and regional partners are reassessing the reliability of American protection. Power, it seems, is exercised without certainty of strategic benefit.
In the Middle East, slogans and reality often collide. America First was meant to signal strategic autonomy. Instead, the current conflict illustrates how quickly that autonomy can be subsumed by external priorities when military commitment deepens.
The Persian Gulf recalibration and the limits of American guarantees
The consequences of this war extend far beyond Iran and Israel. Across the Persian Gulf, traditional American partners are quietly reassessing long-held assumptions about security and alliance. A remark attributed to former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak has resurfaced across the region: “Those who wrap themselves in America are naked.” Some attribute it to Anwar Sadat. Regardless of its origin, the sentiment captures a growing anxiety. Allies who depend on American protection may discover that such guarantees are conditional and, in moments of crisis, incomplete.
For decades, Persian Gulf security rested on an implicit agreement: regional states aligned politically and militarily with Washington in return for American protection. This arrangement underpinned everything from base access to arms purchases and energy cooperation. Tehran’s retaliation has tested those assumptions. Drone and missile strike on American bases in Persian Gulf Arab states, particularly the United Arab Emirates and Bahrein, have disrupted daily life. The disruptions have hit economic confidence, battered markets, and exposed vulnerabilities even under American defense umbrellas.
Initial Persian Gulf responses were cautious, reflecting uncertainty about the scope and duration of Iranian retaliation. Some regional officials hoped that escalation would remain limited. By the end of the first week, that expectation proved misplaced. Behind closed doors, the leaders of these countries expressed frustration with the way the war unfolded. Regional sources told the media that these governments were not given advance notice of the US?Israeli strike on Iran and felt ignored when they warned of broader consequences. Officials in these sheikhdoms said Washington prioritized protecting Israel and American troops while leaving them vulnerable.
This frustration has deeper roots. For years, elites in these countries have questioned whether American commitments would hold in moments of regional crisis. In the current conflict, those doubts have become public. Regional analysts note that Persian Gulf states are paying an economic and security price for a war they neither initiated nor endorsed. Airports, hotels, ports, and energy infrastructure have all been affected by Iranian strikes on American bases.
The debate within the Persian Gulf reflects more than simple geopolitical recalculation. It reveals a broader shift in how states view the nature of alliance and protection. The old model assumed that American military power would act as an ultimate guarantor of security. The events of the past weeks have challenged that assumption. Decision-making in Washington, perceived as influenced by a narrow circle prioritizing strategic alignment with Israel, has encouraged Persian Gulf leaders to reconsider their dependence on distant patrons.
Public commentary from influential regional figures illustrates this shift. Prominent Emirati businessman Khalaf Al Habtoor questioned whether the objectives of the war took into account the regional consequences or simply ignored the costs borne by states that were not party to the conflict. Emirati policy experts told Reuters that Arab states on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf now realize they cannot rely solely on external security guarantees, and must prepare for crises with their own capabilities or balanced partnerships.
This discourse points to a broader politico?theological dimension in alliance relations. American hegemony operates not only as a guarantor of security but as a form of covenant. Allies invest their security in Washington’s promise of protection and align their strategic behavior accordingly. Loyalty is offered in the expectation of safety. The rupture occurs when that promise appears conditional or incomplete. Friendship begins to resemble hierarchy; power cloaks itself in partnership while demanding sacrifice without reciprocation.
In the current conflict, Persian Gulf states find themselves absorbing consequences without clear assurances of unconditional support. This reality has sparked a reconsideration of long?standing strategic assumptions. Qatar’s prime minister recently observed that the conflict has fundamentally altered regional security calculations, emphasizing the need for diplomatic engagement and de?escalation.
Even if formal alliances remain intact, the political confidence that once underpinned them is eroding. These Arab sheikhdoms are now openly acknowledging that reliance on external powers, whose priorities may shift, carries inherent risks. They recognize that strategic autonomy requires cultivating diversified partnerships, developing indigenous capabilities, and preparing for contingencies that extend beyond reliance on a distant guarantor.
The war with Iran underscores a fundamental tension in US foreign policy. Military power alone does not secure influence; credibility and consistency of purpose matter equally. If Washington’s strategic actions are perceived primarily as serving the priorities of another state, the legitimacy of American leadership is undermined. Gulf Gulf Arab states are beginning to act on this realization. Their recalibration is not simply tactical but reflects a deeper reevaluation of what security guarantees mean in an era of shifting alliances and contested interests.
The question for Washington is unavoidable. If foreign policy continues to be executed largely in alignment with the strategic agenda of another government, what does America First actually signify?
This war proves that slogans, no matter how resonant, crumble when measured against the unforgiving realities of power, regional strategy, and the resilience of those they seek to control.
source: tehrantimes.com