Three ‘America First’ Questions About Trump’s Iran-Israel War
The piece argues that the Trump administration has offered inconsistent and defensive justifications for a long-term Iran-israel war, with little clear account of how the conflict would benefit Americans or protect national interests. It contends that Israel, a longtime U.S. ally funded by American taxpayers, appears to be steering U.S. policy and using the conflict to advance its own geopolitical agenda, a point supported by reporting that Israel is expanding its targets beyond iran. The author poses three critical questions about “America First” in this war: (1) why should U.S. policy be dictated by the Israeli government and what are the real benefits for Americans; (2) to what extent Israel remains an asset to the United States and how much Americans are responsible for Israel’s welfare; and (3) whether statements urging restraint or warning of disaster reflect genuine prudence or reckless escalation. The piece also notes contrasting rhetoric from figures like Charlie Kirk and President Trump, who has suggested removing Iranian leadership and pursuing an indefinite U.S. involvement, implying that the situation is muddled and potentially dangerous. the article asserts that these obvious questions have not been adequately answered, even as Americans face the deadly consequences of the conflict.
Given the mess of inconsistent justifications from the Trump administration regarding our new long-term project in Iran, there’s not much reason to expect anything forthcoming from the president or his cabinet on what exactly is happening over there and why. Depending on who’s talking at any given hour, our involvement in another Middle East war is for the purpose of stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons; taking out the country’s menacing leadership; freeing its oppressed citizenry; preempting an attack that otherwise would have been initiated by Israel; or any combination thereof.
President Trump and other administration officials have made themselves plenty available to the media but are notably defensive when faced with obvious questions as to how this war benefits Americans or otherwise squares would Trump’s well-remembered promise to end international conflicts rather than start them. (Can he still get his Nobel Peace Prize?)
Condescension isn’t a substitute for honesty. This is life and death. To wit, multiple Americans have already died, and the president has helpfully informed us that he anticipates more.
Here are three “America First” questions for the Trump administration’s Iran-Israel war.
Can you explain how it’s in our interest for the Israeli government to dictate U.S. policy in the Middle East as it pertains to using our military and risking the lives of American men and women on behalf of another country’s ambitions? State Secretary Marco Rubio admitted Monday that the administration “knew that there was going to be an Israeli action” against Iran, and so Trump “made the very wise decision” to be the first to attack. In other words, our “closest ally,” Israel, a country that only exists because we fund its defense, forced us into war for its own interests. The New York Times this week reported that Israel is now “seizing the new war as an opportunity to pursue its own geopolitical agenda,” and striking targets in other countries, too.
Rubio: I’ve been asked: why now? One reason why is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States.
If we stood and waited for that attack to come first,… pic.twitter.com/M0j26OX8dw
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 2, 2026
To what extent does Israel continue to be an asset to the U.S. and to what extent are Americans responsible for the welfare of that country? If it’s true that this war serves as an “opportunity” for Israel, and our own decisions in it are dependent on what Israel does, it’s important to know what time table Israel is working on because it will apparently dictate our own. If Israel is expanding its attacks into other countries, it’s a great question as to whether we will be forced to do the same, again.
Charlie Kirk said last year that a new war in the Middle East would “not be easy” and, in fact, would be “a catastrophic mistake.” He credited Trump for his “restraint” in starting one. Was Kirk wrong? The president himself has said the people he had in mind to lead Iran now are dead and also that the Iranian people should take the opportunity to install a new government. It’s a mess that someone is going to have to clean up, and Trump has openly stated the U.S. is now involved indefinitely.
Those are obvious questions and the very unappealing answers are becoming clear, even if the administration isn’t readily offering them.
Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Traitors: The Democrat Party’s Collapse into Anti-American Filth.”
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
