Ross Douthat interviews Kurt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative magazine, about the Trump administration's shift toward military interventionism despite campaign promises of restraint. Mills argues that Trump's current foreign policy represents a betrayal of the 'America First' coalition that elected him.

The conversation explores how Trump's administration moved from initial diplomatic efforts—including ceasefire negotiations with Israel and peace talks with Iran—to full-scale military operations. Mills contends this shift reflects Trump's personality flaws and susceptibility to hawkish advisors rather than genuine strategic thinking.

They examine the broader dynamics shaping Republican foreign policy, including generational divides, Israeli influence, and the role of figures like Benjamin Netanyahu in pushing for aggressive Middle East interventions. The discussion references The End of History and the Last Man when analyzing how Bush-era democratization theories continue to influence conservative foreign policy thinking.

Trump's Pivot from Diplomacy to Military Action

The administration initially pursued restraint with Steve Wickoff imposing an Israeli ceasefire in January 2025 and Trump announcing Iran negotiations alongside Netanyahu in April 2025.

Vice President Vance led a 'caustic showdown with Zelensky in February 2025' signaling the administration would take a hard line on Ukraine withdrawal.

Mills argues the shift occurred because 'the president is impatient' and 'does not have the patience for diplomacy' or the detail-oriented mindset to manage competing factions.

Trump's 'underratedly agreeable personality' makes him susceptible to pressure from 'people who want to drive the U.S. into war' including Latin America hawks and Iran hawks.

The Conservative Anti-War Tradition vs. Current Reality

Mills describes the American Conservative's ideology as 'fundamentally a conservative anti-globalism' skeptical of America's 'massive empire overseas' and whether it serves national interests.

The magazine represents a tradition running from Robert Taft through Pat Buchanan, with Mills stating 'I prefer Nixon's foreign policy to Reagan's. I prefer Eisenhower's foreign policy to the John Birch Society, but I prefer Robert Taft to Eisenhower.'

Mills argues Reagan is 'fundamentally an overrated conservative figure, an overrated president, and a potentially, in many ways, damaging one' whose legacy has misled conservatives.

Younger Trump administration appointees were 'put into personnel throughout the administration in a much more pronounced way than in term one' but failed to prevent the hawkish turn.

Israeli Influence on Republican Foreign Policy

Mills claims Netanyahu exerts 'a disgusting amount' of power over U.S. foreign policy, noting he was 'greeted more warmly by the legislature than the president of the United States' during his 2014 congressional address.

Since the 1990s assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli politics has been 'highly twinned with particularly center-right intellectuals and elites in the United States' promoting a siege mentality.

The Bush administration's worldview reflected The End of History and the Last Man thesis that 'the only acceptable style of government and organization in society is Western liberal democracy' with other societies being 'fundamentally illegitimate.'

Mills argues people in 'media and politics' still 'feel that their careers would be destroyed if they're at all critical of Israel' despite growing criticism from prominent right-wing voices.

Public Opinion and Elite Dynamics

Early polling shows 'overwhelming numbers of Republican voters support the war' with Mills arguing this reflects partisan deference: 'Most voters are deferential to their party and their politicians.'

Mills contends that if 'Trump had signed an Iran deal' or 'pulled out of Ukraine,' Republican voters would have supported those decisions with equal enthusiasm.

The anti-war critique has gained traction because 'the highest information members of the party and the most engaged voters' are increasingly receptive to restraint arguments from figures like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon.

Mills argues foreign policy opposition is 'an elite-driven game' concentrated in 'DC and New York' rather than reflecting genuine grassroots sentiment for intervention.

Consequences and Future Republican Politics

Mills predicts that if Iran becomes 'a disaster area,' Trump's approval rating could fall to the 'low 30s, maybe even the high 20s' by autumn 2025.

A failed Iran war could create 'a more and more radicalized polity' where 'Trump will look in some ways like a moderate' compared to future right-wing leaders.

Potential 2028 anti-interventionist candidates include 'Carlson, Bannon, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Thomas Massie' who could challenge establishment figures.

Mills suggests Marco Rubio has 'perverse' political incentives because he 'benefits from Iran failure' and could position himself as a statesman-like alternative for future campaigns.

J.D. Vance faces the challenge that he 'can't make an argument that his own administration's policies have failed' but may need to distance himself from Trump's foreign policy to win in 2028.