A U.S. War with Iran Contradicts Realist Foreign Policy Principles
Source: The American Conservative. "War on Iran Is the Opposite of ‘Realism’ - The American Conservative." February 20, 2026. www.theamericanconservative.com
The Gist
The author argues that going to war with Iran would be a terrible mistake that goes against smart foreign policy. Iran isn't actually a threat to America, and a war would only help Israel dominate the Middle East while putting American lives and interests at serious risk.
Conclusion
The United States should not go to war with Iran because such a war contradicts realist foreign policy principles and would harm American interests
Premises
- Iran does not pose a military threat to America as it is a middling power on the other side of the world
- Iran is not a regional hegemon nor on the verge of becoming one, as demonstrated by Israel's military superiority in the 12-Day War
- A war with Iran would actually help create a regional hegemon (Israel) rather than prevent one, which contradicts realist strategy
- Iran's nuclear ambitions can be addressed through diplomacy, as shown by their previous compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal and current willingness to negotiate
- The risks of war with Iran are enormous, including potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, attacks on U.S. forces, regional escalation, and even nuclear conflict involving Israel
- The U.S. military buildup signals support for Israel's regional ambitions rather than serving genuine American interests
Assumptions
- Realist foreign policy principles should guide U.S. decision-making
- The primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to promote American safety and prosperity, not regime change
- Regional power balances naturally emerge when superpowers don't intervene
- Israel is an aspiring regional hegemon that views Iran as its main obstacle
- Trump is seriously considering or preparing for war with Iran based on military buildup