Donald Trump has made the “America First” doctrine central to his political campaign and presidency. His presidency has been presented as a departure from a US foreign policy that drew America into multiple wars abroad, fuelling instability and draining resources. Many supporters backed Trump because they saw this doctrine as a promise to end America’s long-running wars in the Middle East.

However, recent events regarding the US attack on Iran have left many people wondering whether America is still guided by this doctrine. Many now think the country is guided by a different doctrine: protecting Israel’s strategic interests, even if that means going to war with Iran.

If America is guided by “America First”, attacking Iran appears to contradict this doctrine.

America First or Israel First?

The original promise of “America First” was rooted in a long-standing tradition of American political thought that emphasised sovereignty, non-interventionism, and scepticism towards military intervention beyond the country’s borders. Trump revived the slogan in 2016, presenting it as a rejection of interventionist policies that led to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The promise resonated strongly with the American people, who felt decades of interventionism had drained the country of its resources while offering nothing in return to the common citizen. The basic promise was simple: the country’s policy must serve its own interests first.

In theory, this policy would require extreme caution before military conflict is initiated beyond the country’s borders.

READ: US approves $151.8M weapons sale to Israel, waiving congressional review

A long-standing special relationship

However, the United States’ relationship with Israel has long been treated as a special case in US foreign policy. Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of US foreign aid in the second half of the twentieth century, receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in economic and military aid from the US government.

Under the existing Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel, the US government is obligated to provide Israel with military aid amounting to about $3.8 billion annually until 2028.

The US government has, over the years, protected Israel diplomatically at the international level. At the UN Security Council, the US government has vetoed many resolutions against Israel, showing the country’s continued support for Israel.

The long-standing relationship between the US and Israel has long raised questions about whose interests the US government is serving in the Middle East region: Israel’s or its own.

The long-standing relationship between the US and Israel has long raised questions about whose interests the US government is serving in the Middle East region: Israel’s or its own.

These questions intensified when the United States escalated militarily against Iran in 2026. News outlets reported that Israeli military planning helped shape the decision to launch the strike.

The move was also criticised within the US, with critics noting the inconsistency between the escalation and Trump’s earlier promise to avoid war in the Middle East. The operation also sparked debate over the lack of clear authorisation for the strike.

The issue also came up within Trump’s own base, where supporters of the “Make America Great Again” movement had earlier been opposed to military actions in the Middle East, especially when the country seemed to favour the security of allies over the United States itself.

Serving whose interests?

One of the main arguments levelled against the Iran strikes is that they appear to serve Israel’s strategic interests. Israeli leaders have long presented Iran as the region’s biggest threat and have pushed for stronger international action against it.

If the military strikes by the United States are in line with Israel’s interests, it is reasonable to ask whether the United States is acting first and foremost in its own interests.

Critics point out that the United States did not face a direct threat from Iran when the strikes were carried out. Instead, the strikes were presented as a response to the Iranian threat against Israel.

Such a scenario, therefore, lends itself to the argument that the strikes are “Israel First” rather than “America First”.

The cost to American interests

Another part of the debate concerns the potential cost to American interests.

Escalating military action against Iran carries serious risks for the US. Iran has considerable regional influence through allied armed groups and can target American interests across the Middle East. Tens of thousands of US military personnel are stationed in the region and could be exposed if conflict widens.

There is also an economic cost, borne by American taxpayers. Billions of dollars are already being spent by the US to fund Israeli military actions, with at least $21.7 billion in extra military aid having been provided to Israel.

Critics ask: if American interests are being placed at risk in the Middle East and American lives are being put at risk in military conflicts, who is actually benefiting?

READ: Rubio tells Arab ministers Iran war could last ‘several more weeks’: Report

Growing public scepticism

There is also evidence that public opinion in the United States is shifting. Polls show changing attitudes towards support for Israel and involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.

Among younger voters in particular, there is growing doubt about whether the traditional strategic relationship with Israel still serves America’s interests. That could shape US foreign-policy debates in the years ahead.

Among younger voters in particular, there is growing doubt about whether the traditional strategic relationship with Israel still serves America’s interests. That could shape US foreign-policy debates in the years ahead.

This growing scepticism indicates a widening gap between US policy and public opinion.

The broader implications

The debate over the strike against Iran represents a larger debate about the trajectory of American foreign policy.

If “America First” is genuinely about safety, success, and independence, US policy should be judged by the benefit it brings to American citizens and by the costs it imposes abroad.

But when the US continues to pour treasure into costly wars in the Middle East, especially where another state’s security calculations are central, the meaning of “America First” becomes harder to sustain.

But when the US continues to pour treasure into costly wars in the Middle East, especially where another state’s security calculations are central, the meaning of “America First” becomes harder to sustain.

The latest confrontation with Iran is another example of this phenomenon, in which the US is entangled in a Middle Eastern war whose strategic implications appear closely aligned with Israeli national interests.

Political slogans are, in many ways, a simplification of the complexities of the world we live in, and “America First” is certainly no different in this regard.

The expectation among many Americans, especially Trump supporters, was that this policy would keep the United States out of further conflict and reduce its overseas commitments.

The fact that the United States has chosen to attack Iran, in line with Israel’s strategic calculations, begs a difficult question. Whatever one’s view of the strike itself, is it really “America First” if the United States pursues a policy that protects Israel’s security while risking wider regional conflict?

For many, the answer to this question would seem to be in the negative.

OPINION: Iran’s protests and the question of external involvement

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor