Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Israel-Iran
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Middle East / Military strikes risk escalation to a broader regional war that would harm U.S. interests
Middle East, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen

December 29, 2019

Military strikes risk escalation to a broader regional war that would harm U.S. interests

By Benjamin Friedman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
December 29, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, The Wall Street Journal reported the U.S. military launched retaliatory airstrikes on a Shia militia group in Iraq and Syria blamed for a missile attack on a military base in Kirkuk. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“It’s a tragedy the life of a U.S. contractor was lost in a missile attack on Friday, but retaliatory strikes risk escalation to a broader regional war that would harm U.S. interests.

“The U.S. has no good reason to remain militarily involved in a region of diminishing strategic importance. Keeping large numbers of U.S. forces in the Middle East leaves them vulnerable to attacks from countries and groups who could not otherwise threaten them. There is no justifying rationale for such a risk.

“The Iraq War—like the Afghanistan War, intervention in Syria, and U.S. military support for the war in Yemen—should have long ago ended. Iran is a middling power easily checked by its neighbors. No amount of U.S. forces can solve the Middle East’s political problems, which are the root of the violence and turmoil there.

“The U.S. should stay vigilant to contain the anti-U.S. threats that emanate from the Middle East, but it should extricate itself from its internal struggles.

“Open-ended occupations of Middle Eastern countries weaken the United States and have not made us safer. They should end.”

Author

Photo of Benjamin Friedman

Benjamin
Friedman

Policy Director

Defense Priorities

More on Middle East

op-edIsrael‑Iran, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Nuclear weapons

LTE: Attacks on Iran slow nuclear programme yet solve nothing

By Daniel DePetris

July 15, 2025

op-edIsrael‑Iran, Iran, Middle East

LTE: Regime change in Tehran isn’t worth the risk

By Daniel DePetris

July 15, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Iran, Israel, Middle East

Is the Middle East really on the verge of a new dawn?

By Daniel DePetris

July 10, 2025

ExplainerMilitary analysis, Air power, Basing and force posture, Land power, Naval power

Aligning global military posture with U.S. interests

By Jennifer Kavanagh and Dan Caldwell

July 9, 2025

op-edIsrael‑Iran, Iran, Israel, Middle East

Why the Israel-Iran ceasefire feels like a strategic failure

By Alexander Langlois

July 8, 2025

op-edIsrael‑Hamas, Israel, Israel‑Iran, Middle East

Don’t bet on a Gaza ceasefire

July 3, 2025

Events on Middle East

See All Events
virtualGreat power competition, Balance of power, China, Grand strategy, Middle East

Past Virtual Event: U.S.-China competition and the value of Middle East influence

June 10, 2025
virtualMiddle East, Basing and force posture, Diplomacy, Houthis, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Israel‑Hamas, Military analysis, Syria

Past Virtual Event: Trump in the Middle East: Impacts, implications, and alternatives

May 16, 2025
virtualSyria, Balance of power, Basing and force posture, Counterterrorism, Middle East, Military analysis

Past Virtual Event: Syria after Assad: Prospects for U.S. withdrawal

February 21, 2025

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved