Trump’s “America First” Strategy Redefines U.S.-Israel Relations Through Deterrence

Critics once called it isolationist. But national security experts now say Donald Trump’s “America First” strategy is proving to be something else entirely — a hard-nosed policy of deterrence built on strong alliances, especially 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, told Fox News Digital that the approach goes beyond rhetoric. “The America First approach to U.S. national security means a strong national security policy, a decisive president, keeping our nation out of unnecessary wars, having members of alliances carry their own weight, but it also means standing strongly with Israel and fighting antisemitism,” Fleitz said.

He emphasized that supporting Israel serves strategic interests, not just emotional ones. “Israel is dealing with enemies in the region that the U.S. would have to deal with if it were not there. So it’s in our strategic interest.”

Mike Makovsky, CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), elaborated on this perspective, noting that Israel effectively serves as America’s forward defense. “Historically, there are about three reasons why we have interests in the region,” he explained. “One is Israel. Two is oil. And three is Islamic extremism — terrorism, Shia and Sunni.”

Makovsky pointed to the irony that debates about America First have resurfaced “only a few months after Israel smoked America’s Mideast enemies.” He highlighted Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the role of its proxy forces as particularly concerning. “They’re building ballistic missiles… They could reach the eastern seaboard of the United States,” he said. “You marry missiles with nukes that could hit the U.S. — you’ve got the North Koreans on the West Coast; do you really want Iran that could hit the East Coast?”

According to Makovsky, Israel’s recent military campaigns demonstrate the alliance’s strategic value. “What did the Israelis just do? They took care of it. The United States came in with the B-2 at the very end… but it was Israel that did all that work,” he said.

He added that Israel “pretty much finished off Hamas,” weakened Hezbollah — “which has hundreds of American soldiers’ blood on their hands” — and continues to confront the Houthis to “ensure freedom of navigation.” That, he argued, is deterrence in action: “As long as we support Israel, we give them some help, we give them the weapons they need, they’re really doing our work.”

Fleitz identified Iran as “the biggest threat,” encompassing “Iran and Iran’s proxies in the region. This includes Hamas, Hezbollah in Syria, Iran-backed militias in Iraq, and then Iran itself, with its nuclear weapons program and its sponsorship of terror.”

He noted that Israel’s actions have “destroyed Hamas proxies and significantly weakened Iran,” adding that “we joined Israel in June in taking on Iran’s nuclear program, which was a threat to global security.”

Both analysts framed Iran as part of a wider axis of power alongside Russia and China, with each exploiting Middle East instability to undermine U.S. influence. This trilateral threat operates by fueling proxy wars, spiking energy prices, and threatening crucial trade routes through the Gulf and the Red Sea. Fleitz characterized Trump’s willingness to act decisively “to attack Iran’s nuclear program” as exemplifying how strength can prevent costlier conflicts later.

Energy policy represents another cornerstone of the America First approach. Fleitz explained that “energy independence is a very important part of President Trump’s America First policy to free Americans from high energy bills.” Simultaneously, energy diplomacy abroad reinforces economic security at home. “By pushing the Saudis — and the Saudis, I think, are happy to help us with this — to produce more oil, it may actually help us end the war in Ukraine,” he said.

Makovsky made a similar case for regional stability: “The biggest threat to the Gulf Arab oil exporters… is Iran,” he said. Without Israel’s containment of Tehran, “Iran would have taken over the Middle East, most likely. And if you care about oil prices, that’s not too good.”

The experts emphasized that when Israel shoulders the burden of defending energy corridors and trade routes, Americans save in both financial costs and military deployments.

Fleitz clarified that Trump’s doctrine involves selective force rather than retreat. “He wants to keep our country out of new and unnecessary wars, but he will use military force prudently to defend our national security,” he said. “He is going to avoid sending American troops into certain situations and using military force. But that doesn’t mean he won’t do these things when it is in U.S. strategic interests.”

He pointed out that while U.S. personnel are currently stationed in Israel, “they’re not going to Gaza” and “will not be engaging in combat operations against Hamas.” This mission fits the model of maintaining minimal military footprint while maximizing strategic leverage.

Makovsky warned that abandoning Israel would severely damage America’s global credibility. He recalled a conversation with a senior Arab leader who told him: “If America doesn’t help Israel attack the nuclear facilities of Iran, it will be one of the great catastrophes.”

“That’s because everybody in the Mideast, everyone in Asia, knows that the U.S.–Israel relationship is one of the closest in the world,” Makovsky explained. “If we don’t help Israel, it undercuts our credibility. The Chinese and the Russians and the North Koreans know that if we’re not going to support Israel, we’re not going to help other allies… and it would make us more vulnerable to the Chinese without a doubt.”

Fleitz cited Trump’s “20-point peace plan” for Gaza as exemplifying the America First balance between toughness and diplomacy. “It achieved its two primary objectives, getting all the living hostages out of Israel and enacting a ceasefire,” he said, while acknowledging that “the ceasefire is fairly shaky.” The next step, he added, involves “an international stabilization force” — a complex process still under negotiation.

For both experts, the conclusion is clear: America First doesn’t mean isolation. Rather, it represents a strategy of forming strategic partnerships that keep U.S. troops out of protracted conflicts while maintaining American global dominance.