The regime in Tehran is not merely a brutal dictatorship oppressing its own people: it is a global exporter of terror, instability, and antisemitic violence. When Iranian citizens revolt against the regime, they fight for their freedom while simultaneously striking at the central engine of chaos threatening American interests, Israel’s security, and Jewish communities worldwide. For this reason, the United States must assist the protesters with strength, precision, and purpose.
Is US military assistance to Iranian citizens consistent with the “America First” doctrine?
The answer is unequivocally “Yes!”
If that arsonist disappears, Americans and the entire world will become safer. Done right, helping Iranians dismantle their present regime reduces future US war risk, stabilizes the Middle East, supports Israel, and shrinks the odds of nuclear crisis and of Americans dying in the region later.
The new security logic: Strength without occupation
The US National Security Strategy places the protection of the American people at the top of its priorities. It emphasizes that America must deter threats, win quickly if forced to fight, and maintain the world’s most lethal military while avoiding wars of attrition. That framing signals a shift away from the false choice between two extremes: either endless wars and occupation or total isolation and retreat.
There is a third way: selectively hit the Iranian regime. Help the protesters but avoid the quagmire.
Military activity in Iran could take the form of cyber operations against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ command-and-control systems, disruption of surveillance infrastructure, disabling the regime’s ability to shut down national communications, and degrading the logistics of riot police and IRGC rapid-response units. None of this requires an occupying force.
No doubt, Iran will attempt to export the crisis. Expect Iranian missiles, Hezbollah rockets, Houthi escalation, and a new wave of terror plots. The United States can support the protesters and protect its citizens and partners in the region by reinforcing missile-defense systems for its forces and allies, and through intensive intelligence cooperation to blunt Iranian retaliation.
If America supports protesters and they are successful, it achieves the replacement of a terror-exporting state, reduced pressure on US troops across the region, a massive blow to global jihadist confidence, and an even stronger deterrence reputation.
On the other hand, if Washington refuses to support protesters and the current regime survives, it learns that brutality works, accelerates nuclear leverage, and expands proxy operations. As a result, Israel faces a harsher threat environment and US deterrence erodes globally. That is not America First – that is America in retreat.
Israel’s strategic reality: Alone, even when not alone
Recent Israeli and US voices emphasize that Israel must be able to defend itself without relying indefinitely on American money and arms, while remaining close operational partners. That trend is real, and it is not a betrayal: it reflects maturity.
But the fact that Israel may become more self-reliant does not mean America should ignore Iran. If Washington intends to reduce financial support to Jerusalem, the best substitute for military funding is strategic action that removes the threat such funding was meant to deter. Toppling Iran’s despotic regime would contribute more to Israel’s long-term security than any American support package.
The meaning of “America First” is that America stops wasting its resources on endless missions. Supporting the protesters in Iran could be the opposite of a forever war – and is the shortest path to preventing future ones. For the United States, this is the rare moment when moral clarity and national self-interest align. By helping the protesters replace the evil regime ruling Iran, the US would make the world safer, first and foremost for its own citizens.
The writer is an attorney and a founding partner at the American law firm Ehrenstein|Sager, which specializes in commercial law, complex litigation, and high-stakes international arbitration.