Why the U.S. Must Resist Escalation in the Israel–Iran Standoff

By Anthony Quitugua

Containment, Not Involvement: Why the U.S. Must Resist Escalation in the Israel–Iran Standoff

Israel has already initiated cyber strikes and targeted attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—what the United States must not do now is join in.

As the threat of open conflict between Israel and Iran grows, the United States is facing a familiar temptation: to signal resolve by stepping in militarily. The instinct to deter a nuclear Iran is understandable. But history, including my own experience serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, offers a stark warning about where unchecked escalation leads.

Today’s strategic crossroads can be traced back to the 1970s, when the U.S. supported Iran’s Shah as a regional ally against Soviet expansion. The Shah’s regime was autocratic and increasingly unpopular, and when the revolution came in 1979, American leaders misread it through the Cold War lens. Instead of recalibrating, Washington responded with isolation, severing diplomatic ties and branding Iran a permanent enemy.

That approach helped entrench hardline clerics, suppress moderate voices, and sow decades of hostility. By trying to contain Iran without understanding its internal dynamics, the U.S. inadvertently created the adversarial regime it hoped to avoid. The long-term result has been asymmetric conflict across the region—from Lebanon and Syria to Iraq and Yemen.

Now, as Israel conducts targeted strikes and cyber operations to delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions, U.S. policymakers are again under pressure to act. But American military involvement would only escalate the situation, unify Iran’s fractured population under a nationalist banner, and risk a broader regional war.

Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities is a grave concern. A nuclear-armed Iran would shift the strategic balance in the Middle East and embolden its proxies across the region. Israel’s defensive posture is entirely rational, and their right to act unilaterally should not be questioned. But the United States must draw a clear line between support and intervention.

Support can come in the form of intelligence sharing, diplomatic backing, and regional coordination. What it must not include is direct military action—especially not in the absence of a clearly defined end state or congressional mandate. We’ve learned from Iraq and Afghanistan that even well-intentioned interventions can devolve into open-ended entanglements with unclear returns.

There are also significant differences in how Iranian citizens view their government today. Protests and acts of civil resistance have become more common, despite brutal crackdowns. Many Iranians—especially the younger generation—are increasingly disillusioned with the regime. External military aggression would give the regime precisely what it wants: a foreign enemy to blame, and a cause around which to rally the public.

Strategically, the best option is containment. The U.S. has the tools to pressure Iran through sanctions, deter through regional partnerships, and isolate bad behavior without launching airstrikes or deploying troops. Restraint here is not weakness—it’s prudence backed by experience.

Escalation would also impact global energy markets, regional alliances, and domestic political stability in fragile Middle Eastern governments. Iran’s influence runs deep through Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq. Direct U.S. action risks igniting a wider conflict in which American assets and allies become immediate targets.

Rather than provoke that outcome, the U.S. should recommit to a long-term strategy that allows space for internal change in Iran. This means containing external threats while supporting information access, civil society, and reform-minded elements inside the country. Change that comes from within is far more durable—and less bloody—than what we try to impose from the outside.

I say this not from theory, but from the perspective of someone who has seen what intervention looks like up close. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we were told that decisive action would bring about stability. What we saw instead was the difficulty of building legitimacy where it must be earned locally, not imposed externally.

The lesson is clear. Iran is dangerous—but rushing into conflict is not the solution. We should support Israel’s right to self-defense and stand ready to respond to clear threats to U.S. interests. But we must avoid becoming the central actor in yet another Middle Eastern war.

Containment, deterrence, and long-term strategic patience are the tools we need now. They offer the best chance to limit nuclear proliferation, stabilize the region, and give Iran’s people—not its regime—the opportunity to shape their future.

This is not the time for sabers to rattle. It is the time for sober judgment, discipline, and a foreign policy informed by the past two decades—not blind to them.

Anthony Quitugua is a former U.S. Marine officer and veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. He is currently a cybersecurity executive focusing on national security strategy and international affairs.

 https://www.realclearwire.com/articles/2025/06/19/why_the_us_must_resist_escalation_in_the_israeliran_standoff_1117468.html

The post Why the U.S. Must Resist Escalation in the Israel–Iran Standoff appeared first on Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site
.