Well, we can read what the U.S representative said the UN:
The US engaged in good faith on the text, said Deputy Permanent Representative Robert A. Wood, that would increase opportunities for hostage release and more aid to reach Gaza.
“Unfortunately, nearly all of our recommendations were ignored” leading to an “imbalanced resolution that was divorced from reality that would not move the needle forward on the ground in any concrete way. And so, we regretfully could not support it."
He said the US still could not understand why the resolution’s authors declined to include language condemning “Hamas’s horrific terrorist attack” on Israel, of 7 October.
It killed people from a range of nationalities, subjecting many to “obscene sexual violence.”
He said he had explained earlier in the day why an unconditional ceasefire would simply be “dangerous” and leave Hamas in place, able to attack again.
It was “a recipe for disaster for Israel, for Palestinians and for the entire region”.
Any ceasefire leaving Hamas in control would also deny Palestinians the chance to build something better for themselves, he added.
Moreover, the reasoning suggested in the OP that "the more the war in Gaza endures, the more there is a chance a regional war could break out" is not so obvious as it seems. Alternative view could say that if Israel stops now, the chances for WW3 would increase dramatically — it won't happen tomorrow, but probably in 2-3 years. As it would increase the likelihood that other factors would also try like Hamas to exterminate the Jews. In order to avoid war, U.S should show they are ready for war and are not afraid of it.
Answer from discipulus on Stack ExchangeVideos
Well, we can read what the U.S representative said the UN:
The US engaged in good faith on the text, said Deputy Permanent Representative Robert A. Wood, that would increase opportunities for hostage release and more aid to reach Gaza.
“Unfortunately, nearly all of our recommendations were ignored” leading to an “imbalanced resolution that was divorced from reality that would not move the needle forward on the ground in any concrete way. And so, we regretfully could not support it."
He said the US still could not understand why the resolution’s authors declined to include language condemning “Hamas’s horrific terrorist attack” on Israel, of 7 October.
It killed people from a range of nationalities, subjecting many to “obscene sexual violence.”
He said he had explained earlier in the day why an unconditional ceasefire would simply be “dangerous” and leave Hamas in place, able to attack again.
It was “a recipe for disaster for Israel, for Palestinians and for the entire region”.
Any ceasefire leaving Hamas in control would also deny Palestinians the chance to build something better for themselves, he added.
Moreover, the reasoning suggested in the OP that "the more the war in Gaza endures, the more there is a chance a regional war could break out" is not so obvious as it seems. Alternative view could say that if Israel stops now, the chances for WW3 would increase dramatically — it won't happen tomorrow, but probably in 2-3 years. As it would increase the likelihood that other factors would also try like Hamas to exterminate the Jews. In order to avoid war, U.S should show they are ready for war and are not afraid of it.
Since the Q suggests WW3 and what not, I'll just add this bit from a Nov 14 presser of the Pentagon.
Deterrence in the Middle East is working, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said today.
And yeah, the US says that's because they are striking back.
“Is deterrence working? We feel that it is," said Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh. "We have not seen this war spread into a wider regional conflict. The strikes that we are taking is to signal and to message very strongly to Iran and their affiliated groups to stop. That is the purpose of those strikes.”
"I think we are being very deliberate on how and when we conduct our strikes against these groups," she said. "And I think that Iran is certainly seeing that message.”