The debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East has sharpened lately, with prominent scholars arguing that Washington carries a heavy burden in shaping events that play out far from its shores. In this discussion, Fawaz Jerges, a professor of international relations and Middle East politics, has warned that American actions under President Joe Biden risk dragging the United States into another large-scale war in the region. The claims echo through NBC News coverage, which has highlighted the tension between declared aims and on-the-ground consequences.
According to Jerges, the administration’s stated goal was to prevent the Gaza crisis from spilling over into neighboring states. Yet the professor asserts that the overall strategy has not delivered the hoped-for restraint. The concern is that misjudgments or overly aggressive timelines could provoke a wider escalation, drawing in regional powers and complicating diplomatic channels that might otherwise contain the violence. The fear is not only about immediate casualties but about creating conditions that make durable peace harder to secure for years to come. (NBC News)
From the academic vantage point, the question becomes whether the U.S. expects to influence key decisions made by major actors in the area. Jerges notes that President Biden does not possess direct control over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s calculus on the Gaza crisis, nor does Washington have the sort of leverage that could reliably redirect Iran’s strategic moves. This disconnect — between American diplomatic posture and the autonomy of regional leaders — shapes a volatile environment where misinterpretations can quickly escalate into armed confrontation. The result, according to the analysis, is a perilous drift toward a broader regional conflict that would likely demand costly tradeoffs for the American public and global stability. (NBC News)
Another voice in the discussion, John Kirby, who has served as the National Security Council’s Strategic Communications Coordinator, underscored the absence of concrete intelligence about Iran’s intentions regarding any planned attack on Israel. He indicated that the United States was not involved in crafting a specific plan for Israel’s retaliatory response, suggesting a separation between Washington’s expectations and the operational plans formed by its allies on the ground. The implication is that Washington seeks to avoid being a direct proponent of actions that could steeply widen the conflict, while still bearing responsibility for not allowing a vacuum to emerge in crisis management. (NBC News)
What remains clear is a persistent insistence from White House officials that the United States does not seek confrontation with Iran. The public posture is one of de-escalation and careful diplomacy, paired with sanctions, intelligence sharing, and regional partnerships that aim to deter escalation without provoking a premature or ill-considered clash. The tension between restraint and activism in American policy continues to define how the United States can influence events in a region that has long demanded vigilance, patience, and a nuanced understanding of security dynamics. (NBC News)