We have been at war with Iran since 1979 only most Americans have not realized it. From the time of Iranian mullahs taking our embassy staff hostage, to many different acts of terrorism against our soldiers beginning with the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon and during the war on terror, American soldiers died as result of Iranian efforts. Obama/Biden appeasement Iranian government giving them billions to spread their terrorism which included proxies in Lebanon and Gaza strip as well as Assad in Syria. The reality is that Obama/Biden negotiations would have allowed Iran the bomb but in the case of Obama, long after he left office
The entire basis of Obama/Biden was designed to create a balance of power between Iran, Saudi’s and Israel but the absurdity of the policy could be seen in that Iran’s goal was not a balance of power but control over the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. Brian Kennedy in America Mind observed about Iran, and American policy during the cold war, “The U.S. experience with Iran tells a different story. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States for almost half a century. Its enmity for the U.S. was born of our cooperation in the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and the restoration of the Shah of Iran until his fall at the hands of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The overthrow in 1953 was part of a series of Cold War considerations that the United States made with our British allies to check the influence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East and ensure Western access to oil…The Cold War, clearly misunderstood by so many young Americans today, was an existential contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States was not engaged in the democracy promotion that came to characterize the discredited and failed efforts of the Global War on Terrorism. During the Cold War, the United States and our NATO allies engaged in ruthless competition with the Soviet Union and its allies, such as Communist China, North Korea, and the terrorist movements represented by the PLO in the Middle East and Communist/terrorist groups in Europe such as Baader-Meinhof, Black September, and the Red Brigades. Communist China supported these groups every bit as much as the SovietUnion did. It was a global struggle for primacy.”
Our involvement with Iran was part of winning the cold war and the collapse of the Shah and its replacement with Mullah’s theocracy changed our calculations in the Middle East and the impact would go beyond the end of Cold war. During the 1980’s Iraq and Iranian were engaged in war for nearly 8 years in which millions died, and we actually supported Saddam against the Iranians Hussain invasion changed the calculations as United States would not allow the invasion to stand and United States led coalition removed Hussian from Kuwait
Muslim scholar Robert Spencer noted the difference between Iran and Iraq, “As a consistent opponent of our misguided misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan from the beginning, I’m here to tell you that Iran in 2025 is not Iraq in 2003. Back in March 2003, I argued in an article in the late, lamented Insight magazine that President Bush did not have a realistic plan for bringing democracy to the Middle East, and that insisting that the nations of the Middle East choose between Western-style democracy or the terror state would do more harm than good.…In that article, I wrote that “certainly he will find proponents of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere. But the primary opponents of these democrats will not be terrorists, but those who hold that no government has any legitimacy unless it obeys the Shariah. Even if they lose in the short run, they will not disappear as long as there are people who take the Koran and Islamic tradition seriously. And that spells trouble for any genuine democracy.” I hate to say, “I told you so,” but I don’t hate it all that much…And now, the idea that the Islamic regime in Iran could well be in its last days is giving a lot of people who style themselves “America First” the vapors. But Iran in 2025 is pretty much the polar opposite of Iraq in 2003. Saddam’s Iraq did not enforce Sharia; ; it was a secular state, which rankled many Muslim hardliners within the country. They were itching for a chance to impose Sharia and govern the country, or as much of it as they could wrench under their control, as a proper Islamic state, and when that chance came courtesy of the Americans, they grabbed it. The Islamic State, which in its heyday controlled a territory in Iraq and Syria larger than Britain, applied Islamic law with scrupulous exactitude and remorseless efficiency. The end result, as everyone knows, was far worse than what had been seen under Saddam.”
Melanie Phillips made a similar point with a British colonial, “In London, a British colonel told me that “Ariel Sharon has his hand up Bush’s back”—and was astonished when I replied that Israel had told the United States it was Iran, not Iraq, which posed the greatest danger.” Iraq war may have been the wrong war at wrong time with the wrong country.
Victor Davis Hanson observed about Trump policy toward Iran and in general, “Trump’s past shows that he never claimed that he was either an ideological isolationist or an interventionist. He was and is clearly a populist-nationalist: i.e., what in a cost-to-benefit analysis is in the best interests of the U.S. at home and its own particular agendas abroad? Trump did not like neo-conservatism because he never felt it was in our interests to spend blood and treasure on those who either did not deserve such largess, or who would never evolve in ways we thought they should, or whose fates were not central to our national interests.” Hanson point is that Trump is not an isolationist but believes that our interest needs to be considered.
In the past, I have discussed the Cap Weinberger thesis on the conditions in which American go to war. For advocate of an America’s First foreign policy might begin reviewing the former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger six rules for engagement. The principles were:
1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.
2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning – or they should not be committed at all (No half-hearted commitment).
3. Forces should be committed with clearly defined political and military objectives.
4. The use of force should be the last resort (after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted).
5. The relationship between objectives and the force committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
6. Before committing forces abroad (in foreign countries) there should be some reasonable assurance of public support.
Casper Weinberger set these principles in the aftermath of the Vietnam war in which America was divided and there was serious question on how the war was conducted, so he set in principle ideas that political leader needs to consider. In 1984, two events occurred, one in which 240 Marines were killed as result of a suicide bomber in Beirut and the second, the invasion of Grenada in which United States removed a Marxist government that overthrew another leftist government and supported by Cuban forces.
The Beirut attack was part of an ill-defined peace keeping mission in Lebanon and eventually Reagan, left Lebanon as oppose to getting sucked into an endless morose and in Grenada, United States went into with overpowering force, and easily removed the Cuban forces in an island in our backyard, the Caribbean.
The first Gulf War was influenced by this principle as United States and their alliance went into Kuwait with overwhelming force, defeated the Iraqi army easily before ending the war. And Bush administration went to the American people and Congress to gain approval to use force if diplomacy failed in persuading Hussein to leave Kuwait. After the failure of diplomacy, the first Gulf War commenced.
The second Gulf War and the war on terror began with these principles but after the initial victory, the United States expanded upon the objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan to reinstitute democratic government in both countries. From there, United States engaged in long term engagement that ended in failure in Afghanistan. The expanded mission after the second war in Iraq ended in failure. Robert Spencer predicted the failure of this mission and while the initial war in Afghanistan was designed to go after those responsible for 9/11 and the initial campaign succeeded in that but the movement toward pushing Afghanistan toward democracy proved problematic and Bush involved us in two wars at same time.
The second Gulf War and the war on terror began with these principles but after the initial victory, the United States expanded upon the objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan to reinstitute democratic government in both countries. From there, United States engaged in long term engagement that ended in failure in Afghanistan.
An Americas First policy begins identifying what is in our national interest and what is not. Americans no longer want to be involved in endless wars without any end game, but they will follow defined goals that are attainable and convinced in our national interest. Reagan exercised a modest foreign policy with the objective of winning the Cold War. After the cold war, we found ourselves in unique position as the World leading superpower after the Soviet Empire collapsed and China has yet to be the power they are now. George W Bush campaigned on a modest foreign policy and even questioned nation building in Haiti but after 9/11, things change and the strategy as Bush administration decided including nation building to reverse future Islamist terrorist states. Just as Bush criticized Clinton administration for his nation building efforts in Haiti, his national building efforts to build more stable nations in the Middle East failed, certainly in Afghanistan and Biden withdrawal proved to be disastrous in allowing the Taliban back in power and Putin took this as a sign of weakness and a license to begin the invasion
What is an American first foreign policy? If China is the main threat, then what strategy needs to be followed? How do decoupling ourselves from China and tariffs fit in the strategy? What alliances need to be set up and the condition of those alliances that will increase our own national interest? What would the role of Europe and NATO play and what about our relations with India fit into our national interest? What should our position be in Europe, and do we allow the Europeans manage the bulk of the defense of Europe against future Russian incursion? How do we deal with Central and South America? I could go on, but Weinberger principle gives Americas firsters a framework to build from.
Victor Davis Hanson concluded, “So-called, optional, bad-deal, and forever wars in the Middle East and their multitrillion-dollar costs would come ultimately at the expense of shorting Middle America back home. However, Trump’s first-term bombing of ISIS, standing down “little rocket man”, warning Putin not to invade Ukraine between 2017-21, and killing off Qasem Soleimani, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and many of the attacking Russian Wagner Group in Syria were certainly not Charles Lindberg isolationism but a sort of Jacksonian—something summed up perhaps as the Gadsen “Don’t tread on me”/ or Lucius Sulla’s “No better friend, no worse enemy” . Trump’s much critiqued references to Putin—most recently during the G7, and his negotiations with him over Ukraine—were never, as alleged, appeasement (he was harder in his first term on Putin than was either Obama or Biden), but art-of-the-deal/transactional (e.g., you don’t gratuitously insult or ostracize your formidable rival in possible deal-making, but seek simultaneously to praise—and beat—him.) Similarly, Churchill initially saw the mass-murdering, treacherous Stalin in the way Trump perhaps sees Putin, someone dangerous and evil, but who if handled carefully, occasionally granted his due, and approached with eyes wide open, could be useful in advancing a country’s realist interests—which for Britain in 1941 was for Russia to kill three-quarters of Nazi Germany’s soldiers, and, mutatis mutandis, for the U.S. in 2025 to cease the mass killing near Europe, save most of an autonomous Ukraine, keep Russia back eastward as far as feasible, and in Kissingerian-style derail the developing Chinese and Russian anti-American axis. Trump was never anti-Ukraine, but rather against a seemingly endless Verdun-like war in which after three years neither side had found a pathway to strategic resolution—a war from the distance fought between two like peoples, one with nuclear weapons, and on the doorstep of Europe.”
Trump policy is not isolationist but based on restricting the use of military only in need to defend our national interest nor is he interested in spreading “democracy” but accept countries choice of government as long they do not impact our national interest. He stated to the Saudis, ”And it’s crucial for the wider world to note this great transformation has not come from Western interventionalists or flying people in beautiful planes giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities… Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here, the people that have lived here all their lives — developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies in your own way. It’s really incredible what you’ve done.”
Trump view is that countries need to find their own path and as long as those paths don’t involved threatening the United States Trump view that each region or countries need to find their own way and we can’t impose our views or system upon others. As Brian Kennedy noted about our alliance in World War II included the Soviet Union and , we allied ourselves with unsavory countries to defeat the Soviet Empire, but also many countries like South Korea found their own path to both economic and political freedom as we aided the process but not start the process for it was their people who started the process and move toward democracy on their own.
Postscript,
As I was completing this piece, Trump bombed the nuclear facilities and now we will see where we go The Weinberger doctrine would limit Trump responses beginning with understanding the limits of what the United States can do. Trump is not interested in boots on the ground, but Trump administration needs to be prepared for Iranians counterattack including shutting down the Strait of Hormuz or terrorist activities in the Unted States with undetected cells.
Trump had a good beginning a limited objective, destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and as for regime change, it would be good if the mullahs were replaced but the United States can not be involved instituting regime change nor have boots on the ground. Iranian people themselves must change their government. Trump has made his feeling known on this.
The Donelson Files 