Regarding security, it seems our political leaders know one thing – more military spending means more security.
Throughout Presidents Donald Trump's and Joe Biden's administrations, our government has spent billions more on nuclear weapons modernization, a case in point on the idea that more spending buys more security. However, let’s review recent history for an alternative viewpoint.
The attacks and counterattacks between Iran and Israel in the first two weeks of April drastically changed the strategic landscape in the Middle East, as stated by writer Vali Nasrin in her story “Why Iran and Israel Stepped Back from the Brink: US Diplomacy Remains the Key to Regional Stability.” On April 1, an Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus killed seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders, including two generals. Two weeks later, Iran retaliated with a barrage of drones and missiles, almost all of which were intercepted.
It's now clear that the spiraling rivalry between Iran and Israel will shape regional security and drive Middle East politics in the future. Each views the other as an archenemy that must be defeated by military means. Left unchecked, their dangerous competition will destabilize the region, and it could ultimately trigger a conflict that drags the United States into a costly war. It now falls on Washington to craft a diplomatic strategy to calm the escalation that caused the direct confrontation between Iran and Israel in April—and could do so again.
Hamas’s October 7 attack dented Israel’s diminished sense of security. So, it launched a ferocious response, seeking to destroy Hamas, free the Israeli hostages that remain in Gaza, and restore confidence in its ability to deter outside attacks and protect its population. All three goals have proven to be out of reach for Israel.
Israel’s strike on the Iranian consulate, like its campaign in Gaza, was in part motivated by the desire to ensure an October 7 type of attack can never be repeated. The strike killed Mohammad Reza Zahedi, the Revolutionary Guard commander who coordinated the military operations of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and other armed groups in the region that Tehran has mobilized in support of Hamas in the past six months. By targeting Zahedi, Israel made clear that it considers Iran to be ultimately responsible for the current crisis.
Tehran knows that Washington and its allies want to avoid a dangerous escalation. Immediately after the Damascus consulate attack, the US and its partners across Europe and the Middle East acted quickly to prevent the crisis from spiraling into war. The US assured Iran that it did not know of Israel’s plans for the strike in advance. Then, it signaled its concerns about the dangers of a larger war both in public statements and through intermediaries. Arab and European diplomats, carrying messages from Washington, spoke to Iranian officials directly. They urged Tehran not to respond but emphasized that if a response were to happen, it should be measured, with a limited scope and range of targets to avoid further escalation. After Iran retaliated, Washington and its allies redirected their efforts, this time leaning on Israel to temper its response.
Neither Iran nor Israel is big on direct conflict, despite their recent show of force. Iran understands that Israel is a nuclear state with superior conventional capabilities and that war with Israel would ultimately mean war with the United States. Israel, for its part, knows that a larger conflict with Iran would compel Hezbollah to fire many more missiles at Israeli cities and military facilities. Washington must remain deeply engaged to prevent a war between Iran and Israel, which might mean a regional war. It must work closely with Israel to address the country’s security concerns, and it should build on the diplomatic progress it has made with Iran in recent weeks.
There are many issues when it comes to preventing war. Israel’s dangerous invasion of Rafah is one of them, as Iran and its allies might be drawn in if the humanitarian disasters continue to worsen. Nasrin recommended a non-military strategy to deal with the crises. She said: “To start, it should deploy the full force of its diplomatic power to work toward an end to the war in Gaza, followed by a serious and sustained pursuit of a viable Palestinian state. This outcome is necessary to build a broader regional order constraining the escalatory impulses that now drive Iranian and Israeli decision-making. The war in Gaza has intensified those impulses, and only by ending it can the tensions simmer down.”
In addition, Israel and Hezbollah will need to restore the cold peace they had maintained between their war in 2006 and October 7 of last year. A cold peace, combined with steps toward a political resolution of the Palestinian issue, is critical to meaningful normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as between Israel and the rest of the Arab world. Iran is another piece of the puzzle. Managing the threat Iran now poses to Israel must go beyond arming Israel and instilling fear of US retaliation in Tehran. The US must also consider a diplomatic push, like its efforts to mediate between Israel and Hezbollah over the past six months, to establish redlines between Iran and Israel.
For such a process to begin, though, the United States and Iran must reduce their own tensions by renewing the discussions about Iran’s nuclear program and regional issues that they started in Oman last year but abandoned after October 7. It is in the United States’ interest to resume these talks, which could lower the temperature between Iran and Israel.
In April, Washington and Tehran talked behind the scenes. Their communication was key to averting catastrophe. As it charts its next diplomatic course, the US should take advantage of that opening to lower the risk of a larger war. It should engage Iran on a host of regional issues, such as the Houthi threat to international shipping in the Red Sea, and build on its previous diplomatic efforts to bring calm to the Israeli-Lebanese border. This is not a time for the United States to fall back on military options as the solution of first resort.
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project