Follow us on social

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

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.


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

Analysis | Middle East
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

keep readingShow less

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.