As people who have been studying and, at times, directly involved in, counter terrorism efforts in the U.S. since 9/11, we have been disappointed in the over-hyped public reaction to the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The key goal of U.S. counter terrorism policy over the past 13 years – preventing a large scale terrorist attack inside of America – has been achieved. ISIS undoubtedly presents a new and dangerous threat, but the organization clearly does not constitute an existential threat to the U.S. homeland. The hysteria over ISIS in the media and our sensational political dialogue is unjustified and unhelpful. This rhetoric attributes undue stature to a regional collection of fanatical insurgents. Let’s take a deep breath and confront ISIS in a thoughtful, deliberate manner.

It is surely unsettling to see waves of heavily armed extremists sweeping across swaths of Iraq and committing gruesome atrocities, especially the beheading of American journalists and the mass executions of religious minorities. But let’s be clear. This is happening more than 6,000 miles away. Of course, the ease of global travel shrinks the world and creates a security vulnerability for the U. S. But over the past decade there have been thousands of radical extremists lurking in dark corners of the world with a deep desire to attack America. None of them have been successful in executing an attack inside our borders. The fact that as many as a hundred ISIS fighters may hold American passports increases our risk. But we have a large counterterrorism enterprise focused like a laser beam on this problem. It cannot drive the risk to zero, but a combination of electronic surveillance, working with regional allies, and border security can substantially mitigate the likelihood and severity of any potential ISIS attack by radicalized US citizens.

What we cannot do is let fear and hyperbole lead us into the trap that ISIS is setting for us. Like al Qaeda before it, ISIS is eager to draw America into a conflict in the Middle East and satisfy its bloodlust on American targets in its own backyard. An exclusively American air campaign, or, worse yet, American troops marching through the heart of the Middle East, would reinforce the extremists’ worldview that the mighty Christian and Jewish west is dedicated to the destruction of Islam.

So, while President Obama has been deservedly criticized for being too slow to recognize the ISIS threat, his instinct about the need to build an international coalition is absolutely correct. Rash, unilateral action by the U.S. would undercut this effort. It would wrongly relieve the pressure on countries in the region to work with us on the ISIS problem. We can’t forget that the security interests of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey and our NATO allies are threatened by ISIS to a much greater extent than our own. We should insist that they step forward, provide people and resources to the fight, and, most importantly, publicly align with the emerging anti-ISIS coalition. We will be in a far better situation if we are overtly fighting with Muslims against ISIS (think the first Iraq War), than if America is seen as intervening in the Middle East against Muslims yet again (think the second Iraq War).