Editor's Notes: Iran's threats to America: Why 'America First' must address the IRGC - comment

It’s no secret that Israelis, as well as the editorial board of this news publication, have called countless times for an attack on the bloodthirsty Iranian regime. Jerusalem’s position isn’t very complicated. A country (or at least the leadership) of close to 100 million people has been threatening to wipe the only Jewish state off the face of the earth. It funds all of our enemies. Its leaders are Holocaust deniers. We want this regime gone.

But forget about us for a second. Though we are a very self-centered nation, it’s actually not all about us. Many of us understood the “America First” ideology as one that promotes isolationism and advances only internal policies for the good of the American people.

I was curious to hear what the isolationists in the Republican Party had to say about an attack. Sen. Rand Paul warned that talk of bombing Iran could drag the United States into another Middle East war. Then-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called the whole idea “everything we voted against,” aiming the line straight at Trump and the people around him. Rep. Thomas Massie and others keep returning to the same refrain: Congress, war powers, no blank checks.

I get the instinct. The US has a long, ugly record of paying top dollar for vague missions, rosy intelligence, and leaders who promise “a quick one” and then ask for just one more year. Plenty of Americans watched Iraq metastasize from an operation into an era. They don’t want a sequel.

Still, “America First” deserves a higher standard than reflexive restraint.

At its best, America First is a doctrine of protection. It puts American lives, American deterrence, American economic security, and American credibility at the center of decision-making. It prizes focus. It prizes limits. It also prizes consequences. A foreign regime that funds, trains, and arms groups that shoot at Americans has already made the conflict real. The only question left is whether Washington responds in a way that reduces future attacks.

Some of the sharper voices on the post-Iraq Right say it plainly. One formulation I’ve seen from conservative circles is blunt and almost unpoetic: Break their stuff and leave. Daniel Horowitz, the voice behind the Conservative Review podcast on The Blaze, is a prominent, right-wing commentator focusing on conservative, “America First” policies. He explained that the US should use “prioritized deterrence,” a foreign policy that avoids occupation and nation-building while still punishing enemies who target Americans.

That framework fits Iran far better than the tired binary of “do nothing” versus “invade.”

So, to those isolationists, I will just give a few examples of how the extreme regime in Iran is trying to undermine your own country, even though you live on a very different continent.

Let’s continue. In January 2024, a drone attack hit Tower 22 in Jordan, killing three US service members and wounding 47 others. That strike wasn’t a one-off lightning bolt but landed in the middle of a sustained campaign. Since October 2023, Iran-backed militias have launched over 216 attacks against US forces, primarily targeting bases in Syria and Iraq using hundreds of drones and missiles. This data was published in June 2025; thus, there are many more of these attacks.

These strikes, largely coordinated by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, resulted in dozens of injuries and the deaths of three service members during that 2024 drone attack in Jordan. Despite a temporary pause following US retaliation, the frequency of these incidents reflects a significant and ongoing escalation of regional tensions.

Then there’s the rhetoric. “Death to America” has been a regime-branded slogan for decades, repeated at state-linked rallies and reiterated by officials and state media. More recently, Iran’s foreign minister warned that any attack would bring strikes on US bases in the region. America First should treat that as a direct challenge.

The isolationist case usually leans on two claims: First, they argue that action against Iran automatically becomes another Iraq. And, maybe even more importantly, they argue that deterrence can be maintained through distance, sanctions, and harsh words.

Both claims underestimate how Iran operates and how modern war works.

A serious America First approach should keep the mission tight. It targets the IRGC’s capacity to project violence. It focuses on command-and-control nodes, weapons pipelines, drone and missile infrastructure, and the financial arteries that feed proxies. It avoids occupation. It avoids a fantasy “democracy export” project. It stays disciplined.

But it’s not all just about ammunition and military issues. The US Treasury’s own language points to how the IRGC funds itself through business networks, front companies, smuggling routes, and international facilitators. The US can tighten that vise, and it can do so in a way that hits the IRGC’s commercial empire while keeping humanitarian channels open.

There’s also the influence campaign, which has moved from the region to American screens. In July 2024, Avril Haines, the then-director of national intelligence in the Biden Administration, said Iranian government actors posed as activists online, encouraged protests, and provided financial support to protesters. She stressed that Americans protesting were acting in good faith, and the point here is to recognize that Tehran sees US domestic division as a battlefield it can exploit.

On top of that, US prosecutors have repeatedly described Iranian-linked operations on American soil, including alleged plots aimed at dissidents and officials. And beyond prosecutions, investigative reporting has detailed claims that Iran sought to cultivate influence through networks of analysts and messaging efforts in Western capitals. The Semafor news outlet reported on leaked emails tied to an “Iran Experts Initiative” effort to shape discourse.

Why does this matter for America First? Because information warfare shapes whether America can act like a sovereign power at all. A country that can’t identify foreign manipulation ends up arguing with itself while adversaries set the tempo.

Some conservatives hear all this and still say, “Fine, keep squeezing, keep sanctioning, keep warning, keep intercepting, keep defending.” Defense has its place, but it also turns the US into a permanent goalie. Iran gets to take shot after shot, while the US pays for the net.

Deterrence changes the structure of the game. It raises the price of shooting at Americans. It convinces IRGC commanders and their proxy partners that every strike carries a cost they can’t outsource to some militia “brand.”

Now, I’ll put my cards on the table because readers deserve honesty. I carry two passports. My life is in Israel, my family is in Israel, and my emotions live there too. Still, set Israel aside for a moment. Pretend the word “Israel” never appears on the map.

America First still runs straight into Iran. Iran’s proxy system has killed Americans. Iran’s leaders talk openly about striking US bases. Iran’s networks fund and arm groups that disrupt the global commons and force the US to patrol the world like an exhausted empire. Iran’s influence operations aim to widen cracks inside American society.

America First calls for a policy that protects Americans with discipline and force where it counts. That can mean a direct campaign against the IRGC. That can mean a step-by-step strategy that fractures the regime’s instruments of control and terror. Either way, the doctrine has to meet the reality in front of it because the IRGC has already met America.