If there’s a consensus among critics of military action against Iran, it’s that such actions constitute an “unnecessary war of choice.” While the complaint lacks credibility, its frequent repetition warrants careful analysis.
The Democratic nominee who lost to President Donald Trump in 2024 and is a potential 2028 candidate, Kamala Harris, used the phrase: “unnecessary … war of choice.” Similarly, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another possible 2028 contender, described it as “unnecessary … a deliberate choice of aggression.” Mayor Pete Buttigieg also referenced this framing: “war of choice … unnecessary war.”
A Harvard professor specializing in national security and strategy, David Sanger, has similarly labeled U.S. military operations as “the ultimate war of choice” and noted that under international law, the distinction between a war of necessity and one of choice is critical.
These distinctions have roots in Jewish and Christian traditions. The Babylonian Talmud, from 300 to 600 CE, provides detailed analyses: Rava (280–352 CE) distinguishes between obligatory wars (those Joshua waged for Eretz Yisrael) and elective wars (those of King David for territorial expansion). Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (1170–1180) similarly identifies obligatory wars as those against the seven nations, against Amalek, or to defend Israel from an attacker.
The timing of this conflict aligns with Shabbat Zachor, a holiday commemorating Deuteronomy 25:17-19 and I Samuel 15:2-34 — passages condemning Amalek. In Christian tradition, St. Augustine (418) defined necessary war as one that secures peace, while Hugo Grotius (1625) argued that threats of neighborly strength do not justify war.
The U.S.-Israel operation against Iran does not appear to be a war of choice in the sense of territorial conquest. Neither nation seeks permanent control over Iranian territory. The conflict fits Maimonides’ framework of defense and Augustine’s definition of war for peace, as well as Grotius’ test for certainty of threat.
The coverage has been inconsistent. In June 2025, reports indicated that U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites only delayed Iran’s program by a few months and that much of Iran’s enriched uranium was moved prior to the attacks. Now, similar reporting criticizes President Trump for an unnecessary strike because it had previously disrupted Iran’s capabilities.
Iran has repeatedly targeted Americans: from the 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the 1983 Beirut Marine Barracks bombing (killing 241 Americans) to recent attacks on Israel that claimed American lives. The Iranian regime has attempted assassinations against U.S. officials, including former national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
This inconsistency highlights a pattern: outlets acknowledge Iran’s capabilities when they serve their agenda but dismiss them when used to justify U.S. action.
Former National Security Council official Richard Haass noted that diplomatic efforts, economic sanctions, and naval interdiction had been tried without significant results. The current administration’s decision to act is not an unnecessary war of choice but a necessary response to an ongoing Iranian threat.