In just over a year, U.S. foreign policy has swung from the campaign vow ‘No New Wars’ to a posture that includes joint American-Israeli strikes on Tehran and a presidential appeal urging Iranian civilians to ‘take over’ their government. Diplomacy failed to secure a new nuclear agreement, the conflict expanded to involve Gulf states, and headlines were dominated by fears of a wider war as regional actors bolstered arsenals and pushed for de-escalation.
The administration insists its doctrine is one of restraint. Vice President J.D. Vance and the December National Security Strategy framed a realignment under ‘America First,’ emphasizing domestic priorities and signaling a lighter U.S. footprint in Europe while encouraging allies to carry more of their defense burden. Yet policy choices on the ground tell a different story.
Great-power competition remains central. Though senior officials downplayed threats from Russia and China, Washington has continued to counter both powers. Early in 2026, operations that removed Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and redirected oil flows to limit Chinese influence ran counter to claims of hemispheric pullback, even as Beijing was later invited to buy Venezuelan oil. In Syria, a public withdrawal was accompanied by bolstered proxies and a hardened U.S. presence in Al Hasakah aimed at shaping post-conflict outcomes and constraining Russian gains. The administration’s outreach to controversial figures with violent pasts further signaled ongoing entanglement.
An administration-appointed ‘Board of Peace’ to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction drew criticism for sidestepping established multilateral institutions like the UN and for securing pledges that have not yet materialized. Establishing an exclusive forum to decide on land and aid in another region looks less like domestic retrenchment and more like selective global management.
During strikes on Iran, presidential rhetoric heightened risk: threats directed at the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and public calls for regime change endangered civilians and exposed U.S. forces to retaliation. U.S. bases across the Middle East came under attack, and Tehran-aligned proxies have the capacity to escalate further. If restraint is meant to be the guiding principle, these interventions and the redrawing of geopolitical lines undermine that claim.
This pattern is not unique to the current administration. Over the past two decades, presidents from both parties have campaigned on pulling back yet governed by projecting force. Barack Obama promised to end ‘endless wars’ even as covert drone campaigns expanded and involvement in Libya and Syria deepened. Joe Biden framed foreign policy around the domestic middle class while authorizing major aid to Ukraine and strengthening NATO deterrence. Donald Trump campaigned on disentangling from the Middle East but ordered the killing of Qassem Soleimani, escalating tensions with Iran.
These recurring dissonances point to a structural feature of American policymaking: campaign rhetoric often favors restraint, while governing realities—managing alliances, assessing threats, protecting economic interests, and responding to domestic politics—pull administrations toward intervention, coalition-building, and power projection.
That contradiction matters. When U.S. leaders speak of retrenchment while continuing to shape outcomes abroad, allies and adversaries must decide which signals to trust. Europe’s push for more autonomous security reflects growing skepticism about reliable U.S. disengagement. At the same time, ongoing U.S. interventions continue to influence global geopolitics, sometimes undermining stated goals like hemispheric stability or avoidance of protracted conflicts.
Whether this is a genuine new posture or a rebranding of active global management depends on perspective. What is clear is that rhetoric alone does not equal withdrawal. Until policymakers reconcile promises of retrenchment with sustained interventionist behavior, ‘America First’ will look less like genuine withdrawal and more like a relabeled strategy of selective, hands-on global engagement.
Edited by Casey Herrmann.
The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.