Follow us on social

google cta
How to avoid a wider Mideast conflict

How to avoid a wider Mideast conflict

The response by Israeli officials to the Hamas attack appears to be 'total war.' What happens if the US goes 'all in' on it?

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Hamas’s recent, brutal attacks on Israel have rightly drawn condemnation for their indiscriminate killing of hundreds of civilians while taking large numbers of hostages. Israel has sought to respond to these attacks. The question is what that response should entail.

The response outlined by Israeli officials so far appears to be rapidly moving toward total war — not just air strikes but a potential ground invasion and a pledge to tighten the Israeli blockade of Gaza to cut off electricity and block the import of food and medicines. This approach is likely to result in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of Palestinian civilians, while causing immense suffering for the rest of the territory’s more than two million inhabitants. A response to the Hamas attacks is appropriate, but total war is not the answer — morally or strategically.

As for the Biden administration, its position so far is to go “all in” in supporting the Israeli approach, including the deployment of a carrier group to the region and a pledge to expedite the supply of large quantities of weapons to Israel. This approach risks sparking a wider war that would destabilize the broader Middle East.

At a minimum, the Biden administration should signal to the Netanyahu government that it must observe the laws of war in its response to the Hamas attack, including taking care to avoid killing civilians. Beyond that, the U.S. should coordinate with other players in the region to promote a ceasefire that would head off the potential deaths of thousands of Palestinians and more Israelis beyond the hundreds that have died already.

In assessing the current war, it is important to take into account the context, including Israel’s 16-year long blockade of Gaza, its disproportionate responses to past attacks that have resulted in the deaths of large numbers of Palestinian civilians, and its continued support for settlements in the West Bank that have undermined any hope of a two state solution to the conflict. None of this justifies the Hamas attacks or their consequences for hundreds of Israeli civilians, but no analysis of the roots of the war can ignore this historical background.

Iran’s historic role in providing weapons and training to Hamas has sparked calls in Washington and Tel Aviv for holding Tehran accountable, which may be not so subtle code for launching a military attack on Iran. Allegations that Iran directed or helped plan the Hamas attacks have not been proven, although the Biden administration has pledged to investigate whether that might have been the case.

An attack on Iran would likely spur Tehran to attack U.S. and Israeli targets in the region, including U.S. troops in Syria and Iraq. That in turn could escalate any U.S. or Israeli attacks on Iran, in an upward spiral that could lead to a longer-term confrontation that would threaten the stability of the region for years to come — an outcome that would have decidedly negative consequences for U.S. interests.

Israel has the right to defend itself, but the Biden administration is not obligated to endorse Tel Aviv’s stated war aims, given the risks they pose of undermining any prospect of a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as the possibility that they will drag the U.S. into yet another large war in the Middle East.

It will be difficult to implement any of the above-mentioned measures in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attacks, but they are essential preconditions for heading off another generation of war that could spread far beyond Israel and Palestine and put U.S. servicemen and women at risk.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden lholds a bilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the sidelines of the 78th U.N. General Assembly in New York City, U.S., September 20, 2023. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Does Israel really still need a 'qualitative military edge' ?
An Israeli Air Force F-35I Lightning II “Adir” approaches a U.S. Air Force 908th Expeditionary Refueling Squadron KC-10 Extender to refuel during “Enduring Lightning II” exercise over southern Israel Aug. 2, 2020. While forging a resolute partnership, the allies train to maintain a ready posture to deter against regional aggressors. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Patrick OReilly)

Does Israel really still need a 'qualitative military edge' ?

Middle East

On November 17, 2025, President Donald Trump announced that he would approve the sale to Saudi Arabia of the most advanced US manned strike fighter aircraft, the F-35. The news came one day before the visit to the White House of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has sought to purchase 48 such aircraft in a multibillion-dollar deal that has the potential to shift the military status quo in the Middle East. Currently, Israel is the only other state in the region to possess the F-35.

During the White House meeting, Trump suggested that Saudi Arabia’s F-35s should be equipped with the same technology as those procured by Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly sought assurances from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who sought to walk back Trump’s comment and reiterated a “commitment that the United States will continue to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge in everything related to supplying weapons and military systems to countries in the Middle East.”

keep readingShow less
Think a $35B gas deal will thaw Egypt toward Israel? Not so fast.
Top image credit: Miss.Cabul via shutterstock.com

Think a $35B gas deal will thaw Egypt toward Israel? Not so fast.

Middle East

The Trump administration’s hopes of convening a summit between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi either in Cairo or Washington as early as the end of this month or early next are unlikely to materialize.

The centerpiece of the proposed summit is the lucrative expansion of natural gas exports worth an estimated $35 billion. This mega-deal will pump an additional 4 billion cubic meters annually into Egypt through 2040.

keep readingShow less
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump addresses the nation, Wednesday, December 17, 2025, from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump national security logic: rare earths and fossil fuels

Washington Politics

The new National Security Strategy of the United States seeks “strategic stability” with Russia. It declares that China is merely a competitor, that the Middle East is not central to American security, that Latin America is “our hemisphere,” and that Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

India, the world's largest country by population, barely rates a mention — one might say, as Neville Chamberlain did of Czechoslovakia in 1938, it’s “a faraway country... of which we know nothing.” Well, so much the better for India, which can take care of itself.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.