The Persistence of Israel First

 SCHEERPOST, June 23, 2026,  Timothy Hopper for Foreign Policy in Focus

If there is one conclusion to be drawn from the latest confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel, it is the remarkably short life of Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine. Trump returned to power promising to break with Washington’s foreign-policy establishment, avoid costly overseas commitments, and place the interests of American citizens above the demands of allies and foreign governments. For a brief moment, recent tensions involving Iran appeared to support that narrative. Reports of disagreements between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, combined with signals that the White House remained open to diplomacy with Tehran, created the impression that the administration might finally be pursuing a genuinely independent Middle East policy.

That impression did not last. The sudden hardening of the White House’s tone toward Tehran, followed by the decision to authorize military action against Iran, exposed the limits of Trump’s supposed break with the old order. The strike was more than a military operation; it was a test of whether “America First” could survive a direct collision with Israel’s security priorities.

The outcome suggested that it could not. More importantly, the episode highlighted a broader pattern that extends far beyond the current crisis. The Iran strike was not an isolated departure from “America First.” It was the latest example of a recurring reality: whenever American and Israeli priorities diverge in the Middle East, Trump’s record consistently shows a preference for the latter.

The evidence stretches across both Trump administrations. One of the clearest examples was his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement in 2018. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was far from perfect, but it imposed significant restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program while avoiding military confrontation. European allies overwhelmingly supported preserving the agreement because they viewed it as a mechanism for regional stability. American intelligence agencies repeatedly indicated that Iran was complying with its core obligations at the time of withdrawal.

Yet one government had long viewed the agreement as unacceptable regardless of compliance: Israel. Netanyahu devoted years to opposing the deal and publicly pressured Washington to abandon it. Trump ultimately did exactly that. The result was not greater American security but the collapse of diplomatic constraints, heightened regional tensions, and a path that eventually led toward direct military confrontation.

The same pattern appeared in Trump’s 2017 decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate the U.S. embassy. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations alike avoided such a move because they feared it would inflame regional tensions and undermine Washington’s ability to act as a mediator. The decision delivered a major symbolic and political victory to Israel while generating little measurable strategic benefit for the United States. It weakened America’s diplomatic position across much of the Arab and Muslim world without producing progress toward regional peace.

Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2019 followed a similar logic. No urgent American national-security interest required the move. The decision did not reduce threats to the U.S. homeland, strengthen the American economy, or improve the lives of American citizens. It did, however, fulfill a longstanding Israeli objective and further aligned U.S. policy with Israeli territorial preferences. Once again, Washington absorbed diplomatic costs while Israel obtained a strategic gain………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….  the Iran episode carries significance beyond the immediate military confrontation. It forces a reconsideration of the meaning of “America First” itself. If the doctrine can be suspended whenever Israeli security concerns become central to a crisis, then its practical limitations are far greater than its supporters acknowledged. The issue is not whether Trump supports Israel. Many American presidents have done so. The issue is whether support for Israel has become so deeply embedded within Washington’s political structure that even presidents elected on promises of strategic independence find themselves unable—or unwilling—to depart from it.

The most important question raised by the recent confrontation is therefore not about Iran. It is about the nature of American power and decision-making. Can American foreign policy in the Middle East be defined independently of Israeli preferences when significant disagreements emerge? Or has support for Israel become such a foundational principle that it overrides alternative conceptions of national interest regardless of who occupies the White House?

Trump’s record provides a revealing answer. From the nuclear deal to Jerusalem, from the Golan Heights to the recent strike on Iran, the pattern is difficult to ignore. The slogan “America First” may have transformed American political rhetoric, but when confronted with the most consequential Middle Eastern decisions, Washington repeatedly returned to a familiar reality. The durability of “Israel First” has proven far greater than the lifespan of the doctrine that promised to replace it. https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/23/the-persistence-of-israel-first/

June 25, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international, USA