A New “America First” Foreign Policy

“America first” is a phrase often invoked by politicians when they describe their foreign policy ideology, although it’s not always clear what the label qualitatively means. A politician could use it to refer to noninterventionist policies as much as he or she could use it to refer to carpet bombing a third-world country to oblivion; so long as America’s “interests” come first, one can plausibly claim to put “America first.”

But what if one were to interpret “America first” in a wholly different way, to give the phrase a new meaning? What would that look like? Under a new version of “America first,” discussions would be framed around the role the U.S. has played in shaping international conditions and how U.S. policy can redefine those conditions. The guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy would be the idea that the U.S. is responsible for its own actions first and foremost since that’s what the U.S. can most directly control. 

To ground this notion of “America first” in reality, it is worth examining  the current situation in the Middle East, specifically regarding Iran. Tensions between Saudia Arabia, the U.S., and Iran have escalated dramatically following attacks on Saudi oil fields that occurred on September 14. 

The guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy would be the idea that the U.S. is responsible for its own actions first and foremost since that’s what the U.S. can most directly control.

Iran denies involvement, pointing instead to the fact that Houthi rebels in Yemen have claimed responsibility for the attacks. However, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of committing a “state-on-state act of war,” and President Trump tweeted that the U.S. is “locked and loaded” while waiting for confirmation from the Saudi government on how to proceed. 

An “America first” foreign policy under the conditions that I have outlined would require that the U.S. first examine its own role in creating tensions in the Middle East before choosing to follow a reactionary policy. U.S. involvement in the Middle East , most notably with the U.S. and Britain’s overthrow of the democratically-elected Iranian government in 1953. The U.S. must keep these historical facts in mind when crafting Middle Eastern foreign policy, which should lead to a much more careful approach and potentially even a decision of non-interference. 

However, the United States announced on September 20 that it will begin deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia in response to the oil field attacks. Though Secretary of Defense Mark Esper claims they are “defensive in nature,” it is evident that the U.S. is preparing for a possible war with Iran. 

Not only is the United States providing weapons to an aggressive state in the region, it is contributing to conditions that could certainly be construed as desperate for the Houthis and Iranians.

In response to the Saudi-Houthi conflict, the United States has sided with its Saudi allies and helped block humanitarian aid from reaching Yemen, exacerbating what UNICEF reports is the largest outbreak of cholera on record, with 1.3 million cases and over 2,700 deaths. It has also sought to severely cripple the Iranian economy by reducing its oil output to zero through a series of economic sanctions. It has actively aided Saudi efforts against the Houthi rebels with billions of dollars in weapons deals for the Saudi government. 

Is it not distinctly possible that the U.S. is making matters worse in the Middle East by getting involved? Not only is the United States providing weapons to an aggressive state in the region, it is contributing to conditions that could certainly be construed as desperate for the Houthis and Iranians. Such desperate groups may be pushed to an act such as bombing oilfields in an attempt to defend themselves against the Saudis. 

It is evident that the U.S. has engaged in inflammatory actions; thus, the United States should take action to withdraw itself from the conflict and stop supplying the Saudi government with weapons, allow humanitarian aid into Yemen, and end its attempts to cripple the Iranian economy. 

Yes, the United States has a large vested interest in the Middle East, especially regarding its oil reserves. We have been significantly involved in the Middle East for the better part of the last century, and it would be a complicated process to simply go from having a massive U.S. presence in the region to none at all. But there is a more moral and intelligent means of engaging in the Middle East and the world as a whole than what we have done up to this point. And that means that we have to look inward, at America first. 

Photo licensed from Wikimedia Commons, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license; photo originally posted to Flickr by Gage Skidmore.