America is carrying historic burdens at home.
The national debt has climbed past $38 trillion. Homelessness is visible in every major city. Families still face medical bankruptcy in the wealthiest nation on Earth. Veterans struggle with access to care. Infrastructure decays in plain sight. Even senior Republican leaders now admit the country faces deep structural strain.
Yet one category of policy remains remarkably insulated from serious reassessment: America’s Middle East entanglements — especially its relationship with Israel.
According to Brown University’s Costs of War project, post-9/11 wars have cost the United States roughly $8 trillion, killed nearly one million people directly, and contributed to millions more deaths indirectly through the destruction of health systems, water infrastructure, and food supplies. Entire countries were shattered. Tens of millions were displaced. The refugee crises reshaping Europe did not materialize out of thin air — they were downstream consequences of sustained intervention and escalation.
Americans were promised security.
decades later, the region is less stable, not more.
Washington Didn’t Drift — It Chose a Default
The U.S.–Israel alignment did not persist by accident. It is reinforced year after year by organized lobbying, donor networks, think-tank influence, media framing, and ideological commitments that make pro-Israel policy politically untouchable across both parties.
That is not a conspiracy theory. It is how organized political ecosystems function in Washington: incentives, pressure, and career consequences.
The result is a foreign policy environment where debate narrows quickly. Oversight is framed as betrayal. Conditions on aid are labeled abandonment. “Support” becomes automatic — regardless of events on the ground.
When policy becomes reflex instead of strategy, accountability fades.
Yes, Israel can exist. Not above the law
Statehood does not grant a license to occupy indefinitely, expand settlements without consequence, or apply collective punishment. The right to exist must coexist with the responsibility to comply with international law. That principle applies to every nation that seeks legitimacy.
You can support Israel’s right to exist and still insist it operate as a law-abiding state. Recognition without accountability is not diplomacy. It is indulgence.
The Money Trail Americans Should Actually Debate
Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates the U.S. provided $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel in the two years after October 7, 2023, plus $9.65–$12.07 billion in additional U.S. military operations across the wider region. Long-term tallies from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) show the United States has provided Israel $174 billion in assistance (current dollars). For comparison, CRS estimates U.S. aid to Egypt totals over $87 billion since 1946 (historical dollars, not inflation-adjusted), and U.S. aid to Jordan totals about $26.4 billion through FY2020.
And it’s not just “generosity.” U.S. policy and congressional reporting have long justified large aid flows to Egypt and Jordan as investments in regional stability, including sustaining Arab-Israeli peace arrangements: Egypt’s 1979 treaty and Jordan’s 1994 treaty that keep Israel’s borders with those neighbors formally at peace.
So Americans should stop pretending this is simple charity. It’s a strategic architecture — and it has a bill.
Charity vs. Strategy: Let’s Be Honest
If Americans support foreign assistance as charity, there are nations across Africa, Asia, and Latin America where aid directly translates into food, clean water, disease prevention, and survival.
Israel is not one of them.
It is a technologically advanced country with a modern economy, a powerful military, and universal healthcare for its citizens. The U.S. relationship with Israel is not humanitarian relief. It is a strategic military partnership — and it should be debated as strategy.
Meanwhile, Congress can mobilize billions abroad with bipartisan urgency, while domestic healthcare reform, housing stability, and infrastructure investment are framed as fiscally impossible.
That contradiction is not about capability.
It is about priorities.
The “Great Ally” Question
Alliances are supposed to strengthen national interest.
At some point Americans must ask: does this alignment enhance American stability — or deepen entanglement?
A durable alliance should not require automatic diplomatic shielding, unconditional military support, or silence in the face of controversial actions. It should not drain political capital or contribute to fiscal strain while domestic needs remain unresolved.
“America First” cannot be a slogan reserved for campaign rallies. It must apply to budgets, oversight, and strategic recalibration.
To Christian Voters: Separate Faith From Foreign Policy
This is not an attack on Christianity. It is a call for clarity.
If you believe in the Messiah, then you believe divine timing is sovereign. The return of Christ — if you hold that belief — does not hinge on congressional appropriations or weapons systems. It does not accelerate because Washington funds another conflict.
God does not require geopolitical assistance.
Modern Israel is a 20th-century nation-state operating under contemporary geopolitics. It is not identical to the ancient biblical kingdom described in scripture. Conflating the two risks turning theology into a policy reflex.
Some pastors and broadcasters preach prophecy-driven foreign policy with urgency and certainty, often within well-funded religious networks. That does not invalidate faith. But it should invite thoughtful questions:
- Is foreign policy being shaped by scripture — or by modern political interpretation?
- Does supporting a government’s every action equal faithfulness?
- Can moral conviction coexist with legal accountability?
Christians can oppose antisemitism without endorsing unconditional military policy. They can support Israel’s existence while insisting all governments obey international law. If God is sovereign, then no human government controls His timeline. Faith should shape character — not override constitutional responsibility
Vote Like America Comes First
This is not about hostility toward Israel. It is not about identity. It is about national interest.
If Americans believe their country is fiscally strained, politically polarized, and domestically fragile, then foreign policy deserves scrutiny.
Vote for candidates who:
- support oversight and transparency in foreign aid
- are willing to condition military assistance on compliance with international law
- prioritize debt reduction and domestic stability
- treat alliances as strategic relationships — not automatic entitlements
Democracy provides one mechanism for recalibration: the ballot.
America does not become stronger through blank checks. It becomes stronger when its alliances reinforce — rather than undermine — its economic stability, moral credibility, and constitutional principles.
If “America First” means anything, it means America first in budgets, accountability, and long-term national interest.
Not just in speeches.
