America First? Trump Poised to Lead U.S. Straight Into Iran War

As missiles streak across the Middle East in the fifth day of open conflict between Israel and Iran, President Donald Trump finds himself at a crossroads that could define his second term. His “America First” policy, rooted in avoiding costly foreign wars, clashes with mounting pressures to support Israel’s campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, raising the specter of U.S. military involvement.

Democratic lawmakers, led by Senator Tim Kaine, are pushing to curb Trump’s war powers, while his own Republican base is fracturing over whether to back Israel or stay true to isolationist principles.

Here’s how the “America First” ethos is shaping Trump’s approach to Iran and the risks of a military confrontation.

The “America First” Framework

Trump’s “America First” policy, a cornerstone of his 2016 and 2024 campaigns, emphasizes prioritizing U.S. interests over global entanglements. In the context of Iran, this translates to a dual strategy: aggressive economic sanctions to force Tehran into a nuclear deal and a reluctance to commit U.S. troops to Middle Eastern conflicts. Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has reinstated his first-term “maximum pressure” campaign, expanding sanctions on Iran’s oil sales and proxy networks to curb its nuclear ambitions and regional influence. He has repeatedly stated that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon,” a stance echoed in a June 17, 2025, Truth Social post where he warned of “more brutal” Israeli strikes unless Iran negotiates.

Yet, Trump’s rhetoric also reflects his anti-war instincts. He campaigned against “forever wars,” boasting (incorrectly) that he was the only president in 72 years without wars. His February 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum aimed to force Iran to limit its nuclear and missile programs without U.S. military engagement, favoring diplomacy through intermediaries like Oman. This approach aligns with his base’s desire to avoid the human and financial costs of conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, which saw thousands of U.S. soldiers killed and trillions spent with questionable gains.

Israel’s Strikes and Trump’s Tightrope

The current crisis was triggered by Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, targeting over 100 Iranian sites, including the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and senior military figures like Gen. Hossein Salami. The strikes, which killed over 224 Iranians (mostly civilians, per Tehran’s claims), aimed to cripple Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. Iran retaliated with missile attacks on Tel Aviv and Haifa, killing at least eight Israelis, escalating fears of a regional war.

Trump’s response has been contradictory, reflecting the tension between his “America First” principles and his pro-Israel stance. Initially, he urged Israel to delay strikes to preserve nuclear talks, as reported by The New York Times on May 9, 2025. After a June 8 briefing from Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, however, Trump gave tacit approval for Israel’s operation, convinced of Iran’s nuclear threat based on its 400 kg stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, a short step from weapons-grade material. He later claimed full knowledge of the strikes, telling The Wall Street Journal, “It wasn’t a heads-up. It was, we know what’s going on,” and praised Israel’s “excellent” attacks.

This shift has sparked debate. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the strikes “unilateral,” emphasizing no U.S. military involvement, though the U.S. provided intelligence and resupplied Israel’s Iron Dome system. The deployment of 12 F-22 and F-35 jets, supported by 30 refueling tankers, to bases like Al-Udeid in Qatar, as reported by The Aviationist on June 17, suggests preparation for defensive or potential offensive roles. The USS Nimitz’s arrival to join the USS Abraham Lincoln further signals readiness, raising questions about whether Trump’s “defensive” posture could slide into active participation.

Democratic Push to Restrain Trump

Fearing U.S. entanglement, Senator Tim Kaine introduced a war powers resolution on June 16, 2025, invoking the 1973 War Powers Act to require congressional approval for any offensive U.S. action against Iran. “The American people have no appetite for another endless war,” Kaine stated, supported by Democrats like Senators Bernie Sanders and Chris Murphy, who criticized Israel’s strikes as undermining diplomacy. The resolution, while unlikely to pass in a GOP-controlled Congress, reflects public sentiment: a May 2025 University of Maryland poll found only 14% of Americans support military action against Iran, with 69% favoring a deal.

Kaine’s move builds on his 2020 effort to limit Trump’s war powers after the killing of Qasem Soleimani, which passed but was vetoed. Democrats argue that Israel’s actions, tacitly backed by Trump, risk pulling the U.S. into a conflict that could target its 50,000 troops and 10 bases in the region, as warned by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

A Divided Republican Base

Trump’s base is splintering over Iran. “America First” isolationists, like Senator Rand Paul and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, oppose U.S. involvement, with Paul stating on Meet the Press, “This is not our war.” Greene, on X, emphasized “peace” as her stance, reflecting frustration among MAGA supporters who see foreign wars as betraying Trump’s 2024 campaign promises. Right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk noted a “99 to one” backlash against the strikes among his listeners, warning of a “major schism” in the MAGA community.

Conversely, Iran hawks like Senator Lindsey Graham urge Trump to “go all in,” advocating for U.S. bombs or joint strikes to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Graham’s call for “nothing left standing” in Iran aligns with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-standing goal, pursued since the 1990s, to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat. This divide leaves Trump navigating between his anti-war base and pro-Israel Republicans, risking political damage either way.

Iran’s Response and the Risk of Escalation

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has called for a U.S.-brokered ceasefire, claiming one call from Washington could restrain Netanyahu. Yet Iran’s parliament is debating withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and its missile strikes on Israel demonstrate its retaliatory capacity. Tehran’s threats to target U.S. bases if attacked heighten the stakes, with its defense minister warning, “America will have to leave the region” if it engages militarily.

The IAEA’s June 12 report of Iran’s non-compliance with nuclear safeguards, coupled with its 60% enriched uranium stockpile, has fueled justifications for Israel’s strikes and Trump’s warnings. However, experts like Trita Parsi argue that Iran’s leadership, under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is unlikely to dismantle its nuclear program entirely, viewing it as a survival mechanism.

Netanyahu’s Influence and Trump’s Dilemma

Netanyahu’s strikes, launched days before scheduled U.S.-Iran talks, have been criticized by Democrats and analysts like Mohamad Bazzi as an attempt to sabotage diplomacy and bolster his domestic standing. Trump’s initial opposition to the strikes, followed by reluctant support, suggests he was outmaneuvered by Netanyahu, who has long sought U.S. backing for such an operation. The Guardian notes that Trump’s alignment with Israel risks drawing the U.S. into a conflict that could mirror the 2003 Iraq war’s fallout, with Iran’s nuclear program likely to persist despite the strikes.

The Path Ahead

Trump’s “America First” policy is under strain. His base demands peace, but his support for Israel and warnings of military action, such as threatening to bomb Iran “to smithereens” if it harms Americans, suggest a willingness to escalate if diplomacy fails. The canceled Oman talks, combined with Iran’s refusal to negotiate under pressure, narrow the diplomatic window. Meanwhile, the U.S. military buildup, including stealth fighters and carriers, positions Trump to act decisively if Iran targets U.S. interests.

For now, Trump is caught between his isolationist promises and the hawkish pressures of his party and Israel. Kaine’s resolution may force a congressional reckoning, but its failure could embolden Trump to act unilaterally, risking a war his base opposes. A