Isolation Is Not an Option

Vice President JD Vance’s misadventures on the global stage of late have done much to discredit the isolationist wing of the “MAGA” movement. Last year, many of its adherents praised him for attacking Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an Oval Office meeting—only for Ukrainian defenders to turn the tide against the Russian invaders and receive praise and increased support from President Donald Trump in recent weeks. Similarly, the Vice President’s attempts to broker peace with the Islamic Republic of Iran have run aground on that regime’s fanatic religious extremism; the present conflict shows no signs of concluding any time soon.  

If Vance’s failed attempts to reshape American foreign policy have proven anything, it is that his preferred course of isolationism was never an option. Whatever valid concerns the so-called “restrainers” may express about military preparedness and overextension , their overarching theory has crumpled in the face of geopolitical reality. Threats against the American-led global order are mounting in every theater of the globe, and the only solution is for America to embrace that leadership once again.  

America’s adversaries show no interest in confining themselves to their own regions. Last week, for example, the Iranian regime openly considered attacking Ukraine to support Russia—and since the war began, Tehran has armed Moscow with the drones and missiles that have made the invasion so deadly. In exchange, Vladimir Putin’s espionage apparatus has provided the Islamic Republic with targeting intelligence on American positions across the Middle East. Iran is anything but a non-belligerent in the Ukraine war, let alone a neutral party. 

The lesson the Trump administration ought to have learned by now is that Eastern Europe and the Middle East are two theaters of the same war, not separate conflicts. The regimes in Moscow and Tehran may have different ideological motivations, but they share the same ultimate goal: the degradation and eventual rollback of American influence. The same goes for the Asia-Pacific and the new imperialism of the Chinese Communist Party. What happens on one front affects what happens on another, and our strategy ought to be calculated first and foremost around that fact. 

To further illustrate these stakes, it is worth remembering that Putin has been willing to call on aid from other authoritarian regimes around the globe. Both North Korean and Cuban troops, for example, have made the long trek to the European frontlines to bolster the Russian war effort. Ukrainian intelligence suggests more may be arriving soon. Dictators and despots the world over sense that this is their moment to challenge American primacy, and they do not want to miss it. 

And, of course, the Chinese Communist Party presides over this axis of aggression as the senior partner. Beijing supplies both covert and overt support to revisionist regimes anywhere it causes America headaches. Such mischief advances its goals of replacing the United States as global superpower. The CCP’s confederates repay this patronage by providing benefits such as discounted Russian crude oil or open trade routes through the Red Sea secured by Iran’s Houthi proxies. All in all, this worldwide chaos suits Chairman Xi Jinping’s ambitions just fine, especially as he doubles down on his pursuit of regional hegemony in the Indo-Pacific. The CCP is more than willing to let its junior partners bleed the West as it prepares for aggressive action in its own theater of this global conflict. 

Acknowledging the interlinked strategies that bind together the axis of aggression would be the first step toward bringing coherence to the Trump administration’s national security policy. China, Russia, and Iran cannot be separated by clever diplomacy alone, as some voices in and around the administration have recommended. It is unlikely that President Trump would succeed in pursuing a rapprochement with Russia in hopes of splitting it from China, as Richard Nixon did by exploiting divisions between the Soviet Union and the CCP, because the reality of great power competition is so fundamentally different today. Likewise, Tehran shows no real interest in a negotiated settlement. It is impossible to secure concessions from these regimes when it seems that our word will not be backed by action. 

What, then, is the best approach to out-competing our adversaries? Reestablishing deterrence. Demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, to these regimes that their revisionist ambitions will not be tolerated by the United States. Nearly two decades of weak decisions by the Washington, DC, foreign policy establishment in the Obama, Trump, and Biden presidencies persuaded China, Russia, and Iran that the United States was no longer serious about standing up to revisionism or preventing the emergence of a multipolar world. That bipartisan blob, whatever partisans of either party protest, allowed these regimes to cross red line after red line in the name of “restraint” and “bringing America home.” The result is a world on fire. 

To be sure, the so-called “restrainers” are right to point out that the resources the US military needs for deterrence are not infinite. It is true that missiles sent to one theater cannot be deployed in another, and that the United States faces increasingly severe shortages of all sorts of military equipment. And yet, as Tablet’s Park MacDougald has pointed out, concerns over depleting munitions stockpiles are highly exaggerated by the chattering class. Different allies need different kinds of weapons, and a missile that will help Ukrainian defenders is not necessarily the same as a missile Taiwan needs to help repel a Chinese invasion. Besides, a more serious approach to these shortages would be to develop strategies to reinvigorate the defense industrial base and persuade Congress to reinvest heavily in national security during this period of international crisis. 

Beyond military preparedness, deterrence also requires strong alliances. The years of apology tours from Obama and Biden and the needless quarrelsomeness from Trump have undermined our partners’ confidence in America. Still, nations across the world have shown they are willing to work with the United States if we show respect and a shared sense of urgency. It ought to be clear, then, that American diplomacy should aim to shore up the Western alliance and bring in other countries threatened by the axis of aggression. 

Take the example of Ukraine: Despite incessant criticism from Vance-aligned forces within the administration, she has proven herself a model ally. From their daring resistance and remarkable battlefield comeback to providing defense technology to our partners in the Middle East, Kyiv has shown time and again that it wants to be a full-time member of the West. In Europe, therefore, we should aim, above all, to persuade more of our other allies in the region to act like Ukraine. Poland and other Eastern European countries are already pursuing such a path, and ought to be celebrated more publicly by the administration. Abandoning the fight, as the isolationist establishment seems to desire, would only confirm doubts about American determination.  

Likewise, the past year of Middle Eastern crises only proves that regional normalization requires American leadership. Israel and the Arab states have entered into a cautious working relationship, embodied not only by the Abraham Accords but joint efforts to contain the Islamic Republic of Iran during this present conflict. Leaders in these countries fully understand that they share a common enemy, despite serious issues that remain in their relationships. But without the United States to serve as a mediator, it is unlikely that this mutual understanding can be developed into a longer-lasting strategy for regional security.  

At times, it seems as though Trump himself understands the necessity of deterrence but is undermined by isolationist ideologues throughout the national security apparatus. His decision to launch airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear program demonstrated exactly the boldness this moment requires. Likewise, his recent admiring statements about Ukraine show that he is willing to change his mind as the facts on the ground shift. Yet the constant vacillation between those more hawkish instincts and more dovish policies makes Trump seem totally inconsistent on the world stage.  

The President’s self-contradictions also make him appear weak to his domestic base. Polling shows that Republicans, including those who self-identify as part of the “MAGA” movement, support the war with Iran, desire a tougher line against China, and sympathize with the Ukrainian defenders against Russia. Voters thrill when Trump takes decisive action against America’s enemies, not when he oscillates between appeasement and Obama-style “leading from behind.” If Trump wants to secure his legacy as a populist insurgent who shook up Washington, he must sever ties with the bipartisan foreign policy establishment urging appeasement and isolation. 

In the upcoming midterm elections, and the 2028 presidential election, voters will ask whether they are safer now than they were two or four years ago. Right now, with wars raging and conflicts threatening to erupt around the world, the answer is unclear. But if this administration takes decisive action to deter our adversaries and embolden our allies, Republicans might just find themselves on top once again. 

Michael Lucchese is the founder of Pipe Creek Consulting, an associate editor of Law & Liberty, and a contributing editor to Providence.