Does military intervention against Iran contradict Trump’s America First ideology? Ruairidh Brown argues it, in fact, is a textbook case of Trump’s Machiavellian philosophy

‘You should have taken the deal’

On 18 June 2025, US President Donald Trump demanded that Iran surrender unconditionally in the face of Israeli aggression. He even made veiled threats on the life of Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trump's incendiary comments raised fears Washington might enter Israel’s war.

The prospect brought the President extensive criticism from many of his allies and supporters, who claimed entering the conflict would drag the US into a ‘forever war’ in the Middle East and contradict the principles of ‘America First’.

Nevertheless, on Sunday 22 June, Trump announced that the US military had struck Iran's nuclear facilities, and threatened future attacks 'far greater and far easier'.

America First

We can best understand America First as a rejection of American Exceptionalism. American Exceptionalism is the belief that the US has a special mission to promote liberal democracy and defend the ‘free world’ from the forces of evil, whether German imperialism, Soviet expansionism, or Islamic extremism.

Trump’s Presidency signalled the death of American Exceptionalism. In place of the moral defence of the ‘free world’, Trump promised a more business-minded approach to securing ‘the best deal’ for the US.

Subsequently, Trump said he would allow Russia to do what it wanted to European countries who did not pay their own way. He implied he would not defend Taiwan from China, framing Taipei as an insurance client who did not pay its premiums.

Observers have judged America First an ideology less likely to bring the US into foreign wars, however, war with Iran would seem to contradict this ideology

Observers have, consequently, judged America First an ideology less likely to bring the US into foreign wars – especially conflicts in defence of democracy and with adversaries like China and Russia.

War with Iran would, however, seem to contradict this ideology, bringing the US into a conflict in the Middle East in defence of Israel.

Dealmaker-in-Chief

To understand the motivation for military intervention, we must first consider Trump’s positioning of himself at the heart of the America First agenda.

Trump considers himself the ultimate ‘deal maker’. This belief was central to his celebrity-businessman persona prior to politics, the ‘deal’ being his special ‘art form’.

Trump's dealmaker delusion is key to his political career. His candidacy for President centred on his ability to make the ‘best deals for America’ with the toughest men on the planet. It is what he believed separated him from political rivals such as ‘sleepy Joe’ Biden.

What, however, if a deal cannot be struck? If Trump fails to get the deal done, this undermines his entire dealmaker-in-chief persona.

Luckily, for Trump, he has an ace up his sleeve: the US’ unrivalled military power.

Trump is willing to threaten, and use violence, to ensure he gets his deal. He famously threatened North Korea with ‘fire and fury’ if its leaders did not come to the negotiating table.

The Iran Nuclear Deal

The spectre of violence has been central to Trump's Iran policy.

The Iran Nuclear Deal is, for Trump, a symbolic example of his rivals not putting America First. Since its signing in 2015, he has consistently lambasted the Deal as one of the ‘worst’, ‘horrible’, ‘laughable’, ‘incompetently negotiated’ ‘one-sided’ ‘transactions’ that the US had ‘ever entered into’.

His emphasis on the incompetence of Obama and Clinton in negotiating this terrible deal enhanced Trump's image as the skilful dealmaker in his first Presidential campaign. Unlike those woeful negotiators, Trump believes he has a ‘history of making lots of wonderful deals; that's what I do’.

Trump terminated the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2018 and applied pressure, including violence, to ensure Iran had no path to nuclear weapons

In 2018, Trump subsequently terminated the deal, instead applying maximum pressure to ensure Iran had no path to nuclear weapons and ceased its ‘malign activities’.

This 'pressure' included violence, most notably the assassination of general Major General Qassem Soleimani, ‘the second most powerful person in Iran’, at Baghdad airport in 2022.

'Something's going to happen'

Though Trump sought to reopen negotiations with Khamenei in 2025, he did it alongside the threat of violence: 'I hope you're going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it's going to be a terrible thing'. He added, ‘The time is coming up. Something’s going to happen one way or the other’.

Despite talks advancing through several rounds, Trump expressed pessimism over progress and continued to insist there was time pressure. After Israel's 13 June attacks, Trump implored Iran to take the ‘second chance’ he offered quickly, before it was too late.

Israel achieved air supremacy by Tuesday 17 June, which meant the gap for a deal had almost closed: 'Iran should have signed the "deal" I told them to sign… What a shame, and waste of human life'.

The ‘deal’ – far more than Israel’s right to self-defence – is thus at the centre of Trump’s framing of the conflict. For him, it is not about defending liberal democracy from ‘evil’. The conflict, for Trump, is what happens if you do not take his deal, reminiscent of the ‘fire and fury’ with which he once threatened North Korea.

Gangster-in-Chief

Sunday's attack was in line with Trump's approach to America First; a demonstration of its extreme logic and the violent means Trump is willing to go to secure ‘his deal’, or punish those who refuse to accept his terms.

Sunday's attack was in line with Trump's approach to America First; a demonstration of its extreme logic and the violent means Trump is willing to go to secure ‘his deal’, or punish those who refuse to accept his terms

Nor does this strike need to descend into a ‘forever war’. Trump needs only to point to rubble in Tehran to warn of the consequences of not agreeing to his deal. He does not need ‘boots on the ground’ or the liberation of the Iranian people to achieve this. In his address to the nation, Trump was keen to stress that he hoped Iran had learnt its lesson and the US military would not be needed in this capacity again.

It is a policy from the playbook of Machiavelli, to strike hard and make an example of your victim.

Leo Strauss called Machiavellianism ‘political gangsterism’. This may indeed be a more appropriate term than ‘business-minded’ for Trump’s ideology, for it involves violence and terror to achieve one's aims as much as it does skilful negotiation.

Trump’s approach to Iran is a textbook demonstration of his amoral Machiavellianism and its violent logic. His actions reveal the ‘gangster-in-chief’ behind the ‘dealmaker-in-chief’.