Aaron David Miller on Iran, Escalation and the Limits of American Firepower
JUDJ-Prepared Summary from April 22, 2026 | War Making and Peacemaking: The Future of the US-Israeli Relationship. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speaker.
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at Carnegie and former State Department analyst, advisor and negotiator, joined Patt Morrison to examine the rapidly evolving conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran. Drawing on decades of diplomatic experience, Miller warned that military power, no matter how overwhelming, cannot by itself resolve the political realities of the Middle East.
A War That Has Become Harder to Contain
Miller described the conflict as a “war of choice” that has evolved into something far more dangerous. In his view, the United States and Israel may have underestimated Iran’s ability to absorb military pressure and respond in ways that expand the conflict rather than end it.
One of Miller’s central arguments was that Iran’s most powerful weapon may not be its nuclear program or long-range missiles, but geography. Iran’s proximity to Gulf states, shipping lanes and energy infrastructure gives it significant leverage. By threatening the Strait of Hormuz or targeting nearby states, Iran can create global consequences without needing to match U.S. or Israeli military strength.
The Limits of Military Power
Miller acknowledged that Iran has suffered military degradation, but he cautioned against confusing damage with decisive success. The administration, he argued, appeared to overestimate the ability of U.S. firepower to force Iran into compliance or fracture its leadership.
Instead, Iran’s remaining capacity, particularly through missiles, drones and regional influence, creates ongoing risks. Miller emphasized that in the Middle East, military power must be connected to realistic political goals. Without that connection, even overwhelming force can produce stalemate, escalation or unintended consequences.
Negotiation or Escalation
The central question now, Miller suggested, is whether the conflict moves toward negotiation or deeper escalation. Any diplomatic path would be extremely complex. Issues such as enriched uranium, centrifuges, sanctions relief, inspections and reopening the straits cannot be resolved quickly or casually.
Miller contrasted this moment with the lengthy negotiations behind the Iran nuclear agreement, noting that serious diplomacy requires technical knowledge, patience and an empowered negotiating team. He expressed concern that the current U.S. approach lacks the structure and expertise needed for such a difficult undertaking.
A Narrow Path Forward
For Miller, the immediate priority is preventing the conflict from widening. A prolonged blockade or continued attacks could draw in Gulf states, destabilize energy markets and put pressure on the global economy. The challenge is to create enough space for negotiation before escalation becomes self-sustaining.
His broader warning was clear: the Middle East often frustrates grand American ambitions. The goal should not be transformation through force, but containment, diplomacy and a sober understanding of what power can and cannot achieve.
About America at a Crossroads
Since April 2020, America at a Crossroads has produced weekly virtual programs on topics related to the preservation of our democracy, voting rights, freedom of the press, and a wide array of civil rights, including abortion rights, free speech, and free press. America at a Crossroads is a project of Jews United for Democracy & Justice.
