Once criticized as isolationist, the “America First” strategy is now perceived by national security experts as a robust deterrence policy, anchored by strong alliances, particularly with Israel.

Fred Fleitz, vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security and former chief of staff at the National Security Council, explained that “The America First approach to U.S. national security signifies a firm national security policy, a decisive presidential leadership, avoiding unnecessary conflicts, ensuring alliance members bear their fair share, and strongly supporting Israel while confronting antisemitism.”

He clarified that support for Israel extends beyond sentiment. “Standing with Israel is intrinsically in our interest,” he stated. “Israel confronts regional adversaries that the U.S. would otherwise have to engage, making it a strategic imperative.”

Mike Makovsky, CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), asserted that Israel effectively absorbs threats that would otherwise necessitate U.S. military intervention. He outlined three historical U.S. interests in the region: “One is Israel. Two is oil. And three is Islamic extremism — terrorism, Shia and Sunni.”

Makovsky found it ironic that the “America First” debate has re-emerged “only a few months after Israel effectively neutralized America’s Mideast enemies.” He highlighted the role of proxies, noting, “They are developing ballistic missiles that could reach the eastern seaboard of the United States.” He further posed, “When you combine missiles with potential nuclear capabilities that could strike the U.S. — with North Korea posing a threat on the West Coast; do we really want Iran to be able to hit the East Coast?”

According to Makovsky, Israel’s campaigns against these threats demonstrate the strategic value of the alliance. “What did the Israelis accomplish? They handled it. The United States provided B-2 support at the very end… but Israel performed the bulk of the work,” he remarked.

He added that Israel “largely dismantled Hamas,” weakened Hezbollah — “responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers” — and continues to challenge the Houthis to “ensure freedom of navigation.” This, he argued, exemplifies deterrence in action: “As long as we back Israel, provide assistance, and supply them with necessary weapons, they are essentially carrying out our mission.”

Fleitz labeled Iran “the paramount threat,” encompassing “various destabilizing factors in the region. This includes Hamas, Hezbollah in Syria, Iran-backed militias in Iraq, and Iran itself, with its nuclear weapons program and sponsorship of terrorism.”

He stated that Israel’s actions have “decimated Hamas proxies and significantly weakened Iran,” further adding that “we collaborated with Israel in June to address a specific threat, which posed a danger to global security.”

Both analysts characterized Iran as part of a broader axis of power alongside Russia and China, each leveraging instability in the Middle East to undermine U.S. influence through proxy wars, rising energy prices, and threats to trade routes in the Gulf and Red Sea. Fleitz argued that Trump’s resolve to act decisively “to target Iran’s nuclear program” exemplified using strength to avert more costly future conflicts.

Both agreed that energy policy is a measurable aspect of “America First.” Fleitz stated that “domestic energy independence is a critical component of President Trump’s America First policy to relieve Americans from high energy costs.” Concurrently, he noted, international energy diplomacy bolsters economic security at home. “By encouraging the Saudis — and I believe the Saudis are willing to assist us with this — to increase oil production, it could potentially help us bring an end to the conflict in Ukraine,” he said.

Makovsky presented a similar argument for regional stability: “The most significant threat to Gulf Arab oil exporters … is Iran,” he asserted. Without Israel’s containment of Tehran, “Iran would most likely have gained control of the Middle East. And if one is concerned about oil prices, that outcome is highly undesirable.”

Both experts concluded that when Israel undertakes the defense of energy corridors and trade routes, Americans benefit through reduced expenditures and fewer military deployments.

Fleitz described Trump’s doctrine as one of selective force, not retreat. “He aims to keep our nation out of new and unnecessary wars, but he will judiciously employ military force to safeguard our national security,” he stated. “He will avoid deploying American troops into certain situations and using military force. However, this does not mean he will refrain from such actions when they serve U.S. strategic interests.”

He noted the presence of U.S. personnel currently stationed in Israel, clarifying that “they are not entering Gaza” and “will not be engaging in combat operations against Hamas.” Their mission, he explained, adheres to a model of minimal footprint with maximum leverage.

Makovsky cautioned that abandoning Israel would undermine U.S. credibility. He recalled a statement from a senior Arab leader: “If America does not assist Israel in striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will be one of the greatest catastrophes.”

“This is because everyone in the Middle East, everyone in Asia, understands that the U.S.–Israel relationship is among the closest globally,” Makovsky explained. “If we fail to support Israel, it compromises our credibility. Adversaries and North Koreans know that if we won’t back Israel, we won’t assist other allies … and it would undoubtedly leave us more vulnerable to China.”

Fleitz cited Trump’s “20-point peace plan” for Gaza as an example of the “America First” balance between firm action and diplomacy. “It achieved its two primary objectives: securing the release of all living hostages from Israel and implementing a ceasefire,” he said, acknowledging that “the ceasefire remains quite precarious.” The subsequent step, he added, involves “a complex peace settlement” — a process still under negotiation.

For both experts, the fundamental conclusion is consistent: “America First” does not equate to isolation. Instead, it signifies strategic partnerships that prevent U.S. troops from engaging in prolonged conflicts while preserving American global leadership.