By Brian Joondeph | Commentary, American Thinker
Five months into the Iran conflict, supporters are asking whether America First still means fewer wars.
One of President Donald Trump’s defining campaign themes was refreshingly simple: America should stop fighting endless wars.
He repeated that message across three presidential campaigns. Iraq was a mistake. Afghanistan became a twenty-year quagmire. America had spent trillions of dollars, sacrificed thousands of lives, and, too often, had little to show for it beyond instability and nation-building projects that rarely fulfilled their promises.
During a 2016 presidential debate, Trump called the Iraq War “a big fat mistake.”
Eight years later, while campaigning for a return to the White House, he promised, “I will not send you to fight and die in stupid foreign wars that never end.”
In his 2024 inaugural address, he declared, “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”
The Iran conflict has been underway for only five months, a far cry from Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, which dragged on for years or even decades. American casualties, while tragic, remain comparatively limited compared with those in those wars.
Whether or not one agreed with Trump on every issue, his criticism resonated with millions of Americans. They were tired of serving as the world’s policeman and wanted a president who would put American interests first rather than constantly inserting the United States into conflicts halfway around the globe.
It became one of the pillars of the America First movement.
Reality, however, has a way of testing campaign promises. As Mike Tyson famously observed, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”
To be fair, the war in Ukraine was not Donald Trump’s doing. Russia invaded under Joe Biden’s watch, with tensions rising for several decades over NATO expansion. The conflict had already become Europe’s largest land war since World War II before Trump returned to office.
Still, candidate Trump repeatedly said he could end the conflict quickly — famously claiming he could resolve it in twenty-four hours. Most supporters dismissed the statement as classic Trump hyperbole rather than a literal timetable. Nevertheless, they expected a dramatically different approach to diplomacy.
Nearly two years into his presidency, that war continues, with no obvious end in sight.
Then came Iran.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities was justified. Iran has long sponsored terrorist proxies across the Middle East, repeatedly threatened Israel, and pursued nuclear capabilities that many view as an unacceptable strategic risk. There is a legitimate national security argument that military action became necessary.
That debate, however, is not the point.
The broader question is whether another military conflict in the Middle East aligns with the foreign policy Americans believed they were voting for.
During the campaign, Trump frequently criticized what he called “stupid wars.” He argued that previous administrations had squandered enormous amounts of American blood and treasure in pursuit of objectives that often proved elusive.
His appeal was not built on isolationism but on restraint. Military force would remain available when America’s vital interests were threatened, but it would no longer be the default response to every international crisis.
The distinction mattered.
Today, supporters are understandably asking where the current conflict fits into that philosophy.
President Trump has recently clarified that he never guaranteed there would be no new wars. That is certainly true. Campaign rhetoric often simplifies complex realities, and governing is considerably harder than campaigning.
The Middle East today is anything but simple.
Iran cannot be viewed in isolation. Russia has strengthened its strategic relationship with Tehran, while reports suggest that Ukraine has provided assistance to Israel in certain areas.
China has strategic interests throughout the region. European allies remain deeply invested, particularly in the unimpeded transit of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.
Every move on this geopolitical chessboard affects multiple players at once, making diplomatic off-ramps far more difficult than campaign rhetoric often suggests.
None of this excuses prolonged military involvement, but it does explain why governing is far more complex than giving campaign speeches.
However, complexity does not remove accountability.
Campaign promises set expectations. Voters reasonably judge elected officials against those expectations, even as they acknowledge that circumstances change.
Perhaps the greatest political challenge facing Republicans is not criticism from Democrats but growing unease within their coalition.
The modern Republican Party is no longer unified in support of an interventionist foreign policy. Many of Trump’s strongest supporters embraced America First precisely because it marked a departure from decades of military intervention by both political parties.
Their skepticism extends beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to a broader question: should the United States continue to act as the world’s indispensable military power whenever international crises arise?
This debate is hardly new.
More than sixty years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans about the growing influence of what he famously called the “military-industrial complex.” His concern was not that defense contractors were inherently corrupt.
Rather, he cautioned that permanent institutions naturally develop incentives to perpetuate themselves. Defense contractors understandably benefit from defense spending. Military bureaucracies justify larger budgets by highlighting global threats. Politicians often find it easier to support military action than to explain diplomatic restraint.
The same dynamic persists throughout government. Pharmaceutical companies naturally pursue profitable markets. Public health agencies seek expanded authority. Every institution develops interests that may not always align with those of the public it serves.
Recognizing those incentives is not cynicism. It is simply good governance.
Ultimately, history will judge whether President Trump’s decisions on Iran were strategically necessary or mistaken. That verdict cannot be rendered while events are still unfolding. Predicting the end of the game at halftime is folly.
Politics, however, operates on a much shorter timeline.
If the conflict with Iran expands or drags on for years while the war in Ukraine remains unresolved, Republicans may find themselves defending the very foreign policy Donald Trump once promised to replace.
That would create more than a political problem.
It would raise an uncomfortable question for millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump, believing that America First meant fewer wars, greater restraint, and an end to the seemingly endless cycle of foreign military commitments.
The Iran conflict has not yet become another Iraq or Afghanistan. It may end quickly, vindicating the administration’s decisions. Or it may become the very kind of prolonged military commitment Trump once condemned. At this point, no one knows.
Campaign slogans inspire voters.
Ultimately, governance is measured by results.
Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Colorado-based ophthalmologist who writes frequently about medicine, science, and public policy.
Read more commentaries by Brian Joondeph at American Thinker.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.