Allowing war while trying to prevent it from becoming bigger is akin to the rhythm method of contraception: it doesn’t always work. From Ted Snider at antiwar.com:
In both Gaza and Ukraine, the United States has followed a policy of allowing a war to continue – in the former case through its Security Council veto and in the latter by blocking negotiations – while attempting to limit a widening war. In Gaza, attempts to prevent a wider war have focused first on Lebanon and the potential to spread still wider from there; in Ukraine attempts to prevent a wider war have focused on calibrating Ukraine’s ability to strike deeper into Russian territory and preventing a Russian response that would draw the United States and NATO into a wider world war.
That balancing strategy of allowing war while preventing widening war is now at risk in both theaters.
In the Middle East, while the focus was on Lebanon, a perhaps surprising threat came from Yemen as Houthi fighters attacked and boarded commercial naval vessels bound to or from Israeli ports with cargo. The U.S. opted for a military solution, forming a naval coalition with a small number of countries to protect Red Sea traffic from Houthi attacks. As the attacks continued, and even escalated, the U.S. and thirteen likeminded countries issued a joint statement warning the Houthi against further attacks.
The joint statement asserted that there is no justification for targeting and killing civilians nor for blocking the flow of goods. It called for an immediate end of the illegal attacks and warned the Houthi that they “will bear the responsibility of the consequences should they continue to threaten lives, the global economy, and free flow of commerce in the region’s critical waterways.” The joint statement anchored its legitimacy in a commitment “to the international rules-based order.”
Pingback: Pressing the Triggers That Could Lead to Two Wider Wars, by Ted Snider — Der Friedensstifter