With the region on the brink of all-out war, rhetorical moderation is required.
No American who keeps the score can mourn the demise of Hassan Nasrallah – or lament the disarray into which the Israelis have thrown Hezbollah. But it’s one thing to bid good riddance to Nasrallah and to cheer the weakening of his Iranian-backed Lebanese militia. It’s quite another to welcome this as a prelude to a full-on war with Iran, as Jared Kushner, one of the architects of Trumpian foreign policy, did on Saturday.
“This is significant because Iran is now fully exposed,” tweeted Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a key mover behind the Abraham Accords that normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states. “The reason why their nuclear facilities have not been destroyed, despite weak air defence systems, is because Hezbollah has been a loaded gun pointed at Israel.” The implication is that the loaded gun has now been removed, and that a military intervention against the Tehran-backed regime can be launched more safely.
Kushner’s comments epitomize the mindset of a faction of American foreign policy elites who view conflict as a tool for reshaping global power dynamics. However, such rhetoric and strategic assumptions overlook the volatile and unpredictable nature of Middle Eastern geopolitics. The removal of one threat—Hezbollah—does not eliminate the larger, more complex issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions or the regional stability that could be destabilized by direct military action.
Advocating for an escalation against Iran without a clear understanding of the consequences reflects a dangerous level of hubris. While it’s tempting for certain policymakers to frame military action as a way to advance their geopolitical goals, they often underestimate the potential for widespread devastation and unintended outcomes. A war with Iran would not be confined to Israel and its immediate surroundings; it would involve a global realignment with lasting effects on the U.S., Europe, Russia, and China.
The situation is already dire, with the Middle East teetering on the edge of all-out conflict. Rather than calling for further escalation, figures like Kushner should recognize the importance of moderation and diplomatic solutions to prevent a full-scale war. The region needs stability, not more confrontation, and the U.S. must prioritize de-escalation and peace-building efforts, especially given the broader implications for global security.
Additionally, Kushner’s statements ignore the reality that military intervention often results in more entrenched conflicts and emboldens hardliners within the adversary state. A military strike on Iran could rally nationalist sentiments in the country, making it even harder to negotiate a peaceful resolution. Diplomatic channels, sanctions, and multilateral pressure have a far greater potential for long-term success than reckless military adventurism.
In sum, while the threat from Hezbollah and Iran’s regional influence cannot be dismissed, the focus should be on navigating these challenges through careful, strategic diplomacy. The U.S. and its allies should strive for a comprehensive approach that seeks to contain threats while avoiding the catastrophic consequences of war. Kushner’s impulsive rhetoric only fuels the flames of escalation, when what the region needs most is reason and restraint.