Executive Summary
Washington should define America First as the preservation of American primacy. That requires protecting global trade, securing strategic chokepoints, supporting allies, and using force or diplomacy when vital interests cannot be defended from home.
The recommendation is simple. America should accept limited costs now when they reduce larger military and diplomatic burdens later. Strategic restraint can be wise, but permanent retreat would turn America First into America Meh.
Full Text
When isolationists say America First, what they often mean is America Meh.
America First should mean keeping the United States the world's undisputed superpower. That does not happen by hiding behind two oceans. It happens by winning wars, securing global trade, protecting strategic chokepoints, and shaping the international order.
That is the job description of the world's greatest power. Where possible, it should also mean supporting the freedom of oppressed nations. That moral dimension is one reason allies choose Washington over Beijing or Moscow.
Superpower Job
Too many isolationists appear to want America to become a wealthy middle power that rarely leaves North America. Their position treats distance as a strategy and prosperity as something that can be separated from the international system that protects it.
The logic would have failed in the 1940s, when the United States could not remain secure by treating the Second World War as somebody else's problem. It fails for the same reason today. Threats do not stop becoming American concerns merely because they begin beyond American shores.
This does not require America to enter every conflict or occupy every hostile country. It requires Washington to recognise that power is maintained through action, priorities, and credible commitments. As I argued in Trump's realist foreign policy, realism is not withdrawal. It is the disciplined use of power in pursuit of national interest.
Chokepoint Test
The Strait of Hormuz exposes the contradiction. Isolationists will acknowledge that the strait is vital to the American economy, then insist that America should never become involved there. Both claims cannot govern policy at the same time.
Hormuz matters because energy markets, shipping insurance, allied economies, and freedom of navigation are connected. As the strait's reopening showed, control of that waterway affects far more than the states along its shores. A country that depends on an open chokepoint cannot declare the security of that chokepoint someone else's responsibility.
The Iran war was never only about Iran and Israel. One strategic objective was to create conditions in which regional powers could manage more of their own security without permanent American deployments or constant hands on diplomacy. The logic was to pay more in the short term so America could pay less in the long term.
The war ended before those objectives were fully achieved. America will therefore have to intensify diplomacy across the region instead of stepping back. Military restraint after an incomplete outcome does not remove the burden. It transfers that burden to diplomacy.
Netanyahu Alibi
Reducing the entire conflict to a favour for Netanyahu avoids the real strategic questions. The war also concerned Gulf security, freedom of navigation, and one of the world's most important energy chokepoints.
Saudi Arabia had its own interest in regime change before it stepped back. So did Sunni political figures and sections of public opinion from Lebanon to Yemen. Israel was naturally the loudest and most consistent voice because it faced an existential threat from armed groups funded by Iran, but it remained one voice among several regional interests.
Too often, accusations of Zionism or antisemitic tropes substitute for understanding the Middle East. They erase regional power politics, the interests of Gulf states, and the importance of maritime security. That is analysis by slogan.
None of this means war alone can stabilise the region. I previously argued that Iran cannot be treated as a problem with only a military answer. It means only that Israel cannot serve as an alibi for pretending America has no independent interests in the outcome.
Real Debate
Should America accept peace for now and wait for a better opportunity? That is a serious debate. So are questions about strategy, timing, execution, cost, and the reliability of allies.
Those questions test whether American power is being used well. Isolationism asks a different question, whether American power should be used at all beyond the continent. A superpower cannot defend its interests through video calls, press statements, and wishful thinking alone.
Superpowers do not lead by hiding. When America stops shaping the world around it, America First becomes America Meh.