A Call for Restraint

Embracing True American Values in a Tumultuous World

As someone who has long championed the principles that brought President Donald Trump to power, foremost among them the ethos of “America First,” I feel compelled to address a pressing concern as the specter of U.S. military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict looms ever closer.

Let’s be straightforward: the American populace is weary of yet another war in the Middle East. A recent YouGov poll reveals that 60% of Americans stand against U.S. military intervention. They remember the costly entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they recall the promises made—promises, including Trump’s own—that aimed to end these foreign entanglements.

When the latest tensions between Israel and Iran flared up, I experienced a moment of alarm, just like many of you. The headlines painted a dire picture, suggesting we might wake up to the threat of nuclear conflict. Thankfully, President Trump chose a path of caution, taking two weeks to evaluate the situation before reacting. That level of restraint was not only wise but also reflected the sentiments of the American people.

However, as discussions evolve from merely preventing Iran’s nuclear ambitions to contemplating regime change, we tread into precarious territory. I’ve said it before, and I’ll continue to say it: “America First” does not mean America everywhere. It emphasizes prioritizing our citizens, our resources, and our security, rather than the ambitions of foreign powers or advisors with their own agendas.

We cannot afford to repeat the errors of past conflicts, rushing into wars based on intelligence that may not be rigorously vetted or, worse, influenced by other nations with their own interests at heart. I have witnessed both parties make this mistake, and I refuse to watch it unfold again.

Moreover, I cannot overlook the evolving dynamics within the Republican Party. There’s a noticeable divide between the traditional neocon establishment and a fresh wave of conservatives who genuinely advocate for peace through strength, not just for the spectacle of war. Those of us who rallied behind Trump in 2016—knocking on doors, filling stadiums, and raising our voices against the status quo—are now seeing our perspectives sidelined in favor of familiar war hawks.

Let’s not kid ourselves—the intelligence surrounding this issue is convoluted. Take Tulsi Gabbard, for instance. Regardless of your stance on her, she has posed critical questions about the accuracy of claims regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. When she presented these views in Congress, even former CIA Director John Ratcliffe didn’t refute her. That silence is telling. Now, while the President claims Tulsi was “wrong,” there seems to be a disconnect between the White House and the Director of National Intelligence. This kind of dysfunction at the top is perilous, especially with the prospect of war looming.

We’ve seen this playbook before: politicized intelligence, shifting justifications, and a troubling eagerness from some in Washington to act as the world’s police. If President Trump is sincere about the legacy he wishes to leave—a legacy he has promised—he must scrutinize the advisors he has chosen.

Names like J.D. Vance and Steve Bannon have emerged as advocates for restraint, while figures like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio appear more inclined toward chest-thumping or distractions rather than genuine diplomacy. The President must choose which camp to align with, as the stakes are too high for inconsistency.

Let’s remember: we can stand by Israel as a steadfast ally while also holding its leadership—namely Netanyahu’s government—accountable for actions that could escalate tensions unnecessarily. Supporting a nation does not equate to endorsing every decision made by its leaders. This sentiment resonates with Americans, and it should be reflected in our foreign policy.

To my fellow Republicans: If we allow ourselves to be dragged into yet another conflict, there will be significant repercussions at the polls. The Left is already gearing up to label us as the party of endless wars, while they cloak themselves in the language of diplomacy and peace. We must not let that narrative take root—not if we aim to succeed in 2026 and beyond.

This is a pivotal moment—not just for Donald Trump’s campaign, but for the conservative movement as a whole. If we remain steadfast in our principles, we will emerge stronger from this. Conversely, if we succumb to external pressures and revert to outdated patterns, we stand to lose not only our elections but our credibility.

Let’s make “America First” synonymous with the pursuit of peace. We must hold fast to that ideal.