America First, or America Alone? How Trump's Iran War Tests the Limits of National Interest in a World That May No Longer Wait

Geopolitics | U.S. Foreign Policy | International Relations Theory

There is a central tension buried inside the phrase "America First" that its architects never fully resolved — and that the Iran war is now forcing into the open. The slogan promises a foreign policy organized entirely around national interest: fewer entanglements, fewer subsidies for ungrateful allies, more direct returns for the American people. It is, at its intellectual core, a realist doctrine. But realism, properly understood, has never been simply about choosing national interest over international commitment. It has always been about calculating which international commitments serve the national interest — and which ones, over time, become the national interest itself.

Trump is now running that calculation in real time, in the Persian Gulf, with consequences that extend well beyond any individual battlefield.

To take the doctrine seriously is to follow its reasoning to its intended conclusion. In the Iran war, the logic runs roughly as follows: Iran represents a genuine threat — to American security, to regional stability, to the nuclear non-proliferation order. Previous administrations failed to act decisively. Trump, unencumbered by liberal multilateralism, was willing to act. The operation began on February 28, targeting Iranian leadership and military infrastructure in coordination with Israel. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed on the first day. Trump declared that the U.S. had beaten and decimated Iran.

From this vantage point, the war is precisely what "America First" looks like in practice. It is unilateral force applied where Washington judges it necessary, without waiting for allied consensus, without seeking Security Council authorization, without offering adversaries the diplomatic cover of prolonged negotiations. Trump called it "peace through strength." His supporters would add: at least someone finally acted.

There is also a harder resource logic underneath the ideology. Reporting from Jacobin, drawing on multiple diplomatic sources, reconstructed the strategic calculation that preceded the February strikes: the geopolitical logic of routing Gulf oil to Mediterranean ports rather than through the Strait of Hormuz would reshape the economics of the entire U.S.-China competition — oil traveling overland to European markets would cost more for Asian buyers and less for European ones, redirecting energy flows away from China and toward America's allies. A compliant successor regime in Tehran, modeled on Washington's arrangement with post-Maduro Venezuela, would give the United States direct influence over Persian Gulf oil production and pricing. This is America First as resource strategy — not merely rhetoric.

The problem with measuring a foreign policy only by its stated objectives is that it ignores what it costs to pursue them — and what it costs others, whose reactions become tomorrow's constraints.

On the domestic front, the costs are already visible. Trump had the economic wind at his back at the start of the year: falling mortgage rates, relatively low inflation, and cheap oil and gas. His war with Iran threatens to undermine all of that. Goldman Sachs estimated that the oil price shock is suppressing U.S. payroll growth by roughly 10,000 jobs per month, hitting leisure, hospitality, and retail hardest — the working-class service economy that forms the core of Trump's political base. The war also puts pressure on the national budget, with costs exceeding $200 billion. Gas prices hit $4 per gallon by March 31. Trump, asked directly, said: "If they rise, they rise."

That phrase is worth sitting with. It is an honest acknowledgment that the war's costs fall primarily on Americans who were promised, explicitly, that this administration would put their interests first. The cognitive dissonance is not incidental — it is structural. A foreign policy that accepts domestic economic pain as a necessary cost of strategic ambition has crossed a conceptual threshold: it is no longer purely about the national interest of ordinary Americans. It is about something larger, and more traditional — the projection of power, the logic of empire, the arithmetic of hegemony.

On the international front, the costs are equally significant, and perhaps more durable. World leaders who opposed the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran are being torn between Trump's ire at their failure to join the conflict and electorates deeply hostile to the war. Leaders who once tried to appease and flatter the world's most powerful man are now daring to criticize him and seeking distance. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was "fed up" with Britons facing higher energy bills because of the war. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, one of Trump's most reliable European allies, broke publicly with the administration over its attacks on Pope Leo XIV. Canadian politics has been reshaped, in part, by anti-Trump sentiment.

When Trump complained that NATO allies didn't send ships to open the Strait of Hormuz, he hit a sore point. It was not just that allied leaders didn't have the political backing to do so: non-U.S. NATO powers probably don't have the capability anymore to pull off such a mission after years of defense cuts. The alliance that multiplied American power for seven decades is, in the estimation of most serious analysts, structurally weakened — and Trump's publicly discussed NATO withdrawal scenario would formalize a rupture that is already operational.

The intellectual tradition Trump implicitly claims — classical realism, from Morgenthau to Waltz to Mearsheimer — is more demanding than the slogan suggests. It does not say that states should pursue their national interests at all costs and in isolation. It says that the anarchic international system compels states to accumulate power relative to rivals, and that the most effective way to do so is often through alliances, institutions, and the patient management of credibility.

Kenneth Waltz, the architect of structural realism, argued that the distribution of capabilities — not intentions or ideology — determines international outcomes. From this perspective, the question is not whether the Iran war expresses American values, but whether it improves America's relative position. The honest answer, at the six-week mark, is uncertain at best.

The United States remains the world's most capable military power. It has degraded Iran's nuclear infrastructure and killed its supreme leader. These are real achievements. But diplomats around the world are being asked whether American hegemony has been harmed by the conflict. Poland's Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski spoke for many with his response: "We hope not, but we fear it might be."

The specific mechanism of concern is credibility — not the credibility of American force, which has been abundantly demonstrated, but the credibility of American reliability as a partner, a rule-setter, and an architect of international order. Hegemony, in the academic literature of international relations, is not simply about military preponderance. It is about the legitimate authority to set the terms of international life — what Ikenberry called "constitutional order," the capacity to make rules that others accept as legitimate even when they benefit disproportionately from them.

Trump is not interested in that kind of hegemony. He has said so explicitly. He is intent on reordering the entire post-World War II global trading system to undo, as he sees it, unfair advantages enjoyed by U.S. rivals and allies alike. His military aggression against Venezuela and Iran is also his attempt to dispense with the Washington establishment's pretense that this is still the rules-based era. That is, internally, a coherent position. But it carries a price: if the United States is no longer the guarantor of rules-based order, then the legitimacy premium that has allowed it to exercise disproportionate global influence for eighty years begins to erode.

This is where the argument sharpens into something genuinely uncomfortable for the America First framework.

China has watched the Iran war with patient, almost clinical attention. Beijing's goal is to preserve its strong commercial relationships with Arab countries while leveraging its influence as Iran's top trading partner to help safeguard its access to crude oil — an approach expected to continue regardless of who runs the government in Tehran. More pointedly, China has positioned itself as the responsible alternative: stable, non-interventionist, committed to multilateral diplomacy. Xi Jinping said this week that the world should not be allowed to "revert to the law of the jungle." The contrast with Washington's posture is deliberate and effective.

The war is "an opportunity China will not miss to demonstrate its leadership and diplomatic initiative," said Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center. "China's influence and impact is growing daily given this war, while the image of the U.S. is changing."

This dynamic illustrates a paradox at the center of America First thinking that political scientists have debated for years. The United States after World War II built its hegemonic position not primarily through unilateral coercion but through the construction of institutions — the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NATO — that bound others to American-led frameworks and made the costs of defection high. The genius of liberal hegemony was that it embedded American power within multilateral structures that others found useful enough to accept. It was self-interest dressed as universalism, and it worked.

What Trump offers is the inverse: national interest stripped of multilateral cover. The argument is that the cover was always a subsidy for free-riders, and that America is better off without it. There is something to this. But the empirical record of hegemonic transitions — from Britain to the United States, and now potentially from the United States toward a more distributed order — suggests that what declines first is not military capability, but the willingness of others to accept leadership. The Iran war is, among other things, a data point in that longer story.

Trump's operating theory, throughout his career, has been the win-win deal: the arrangement where American leverage extracts maximum concessions while leaving the other party enough to declare a partial victory. It worked, roughly, in the October 2025 Busan meeting with Xi. It worked, imperfectly, in several rounds of the tariff war. The instinct to seek transactional victories is not wrong.

The problem with applying it to the Iran war is that the win-win is genuinely elusive. The United States is effectively taking on a punishing task: wresting control of the Strait of Hormuz from Iran. With its blockade, it is betting that it can better withstand mutually assured economic pain than Tehran can. Karen Young of Columbia's Center on Global Energy Policy put it plainly: "Iran can probably hold out longer than the U.S. Navy would care to enforce the blockade."

The scenarios that produce a genuine American win — a pliable successor regime in Tehran, Persian Gulf oil under effective U.S. influence, a pipeline architecture that routes energy to American allies rather than Chinese markets — are plausible but distant. The scenarios that produce a partial, ambiguous outcome are more probable: a ceasefire that leaves Iran's state apparatus intact, a diplomatic settlement brokered partly through Pakistan and China, an oil market that normalizes at elevated prices while global credibility debts accumulate.

The scenario that the America First framework is most poorly equipped to handle is the one where the win is geopolitical but domestic: where controlling the Strait of Hormuz genuinely disadvantages China over the long run, but the American public experiences the war as expensive, inconclusive, and damaging to daily life. In that scenario, the national interest — properly understood as the long-term strategic position of the United States — and the interests of ordinary Americans diverge. And a doctrine built on collapsing that distinction has no vocabulary for managing the gap.

The Iran war has exposed a fault line inside America First that was always there but is now structural. The doctrine conflates two things that are not the same: the interests of the American nation-state in the long-run international balance of power, and the immediate material interests of American citizens. For most of the post-war era, these roughly aligned, because American hegemony delivered real goods — security guarantees, open trade, energy stability — to both the country's citizens and its strategic position.

What Trump is constructing is a more extractive model of hegemony: one that seeks material resources directly, through military action and economic coercion, rather than through the patient management of institutions. It may produce some of the targeted outcomes. But it is structurally incompatible with maintaining the legitimate authority — the consent of the governed, internationally speaking — that has historically distinguished American hegemony from mere domination.

The choice, in other words, is not simply between national interest and international responsibility. It is between two versions of national interest: one that counts the next quarter, and one that counts the next century. Trump, who has never been comfortable with the second category, is making that choice more visible than any president since Nixon — and making it in real time, in a war that the world is watching.

Whether the outcome validates the doctrine or discredits it will depend on variables that are still undetermined: how the Iran negotiations conclude, whether the May 14 Beijing summit produces durable agreements, and whether the electoral arithmetic of the 2026 midterms ultimately punishes or rewards a president who told his people that their gas prices, their jobs, and their alliances were secondary to a vision of American power that they were never quite asked to ratify.

For now, America is not so much First as it is alone — and alone, as the history of hegemonic transitions reminds us, is a very different thing.

Sources consulted: Foreign Policy, CNN Politics, Fortune, CNBC, NBC News, Al Jazeera, Wikipedia (2026 Iran War; Economic Impact of the 2026 Iran War), Jacobin, Centre for Regional Integration, Commons Library UK, Goldman Sachs research notes via Fortune and CNBC.

Indrit & PolitiPlot