WASHINGTON – U.S. President Donald Trump launched what appears to be a “war of choice” Saturday morning with a broad offensive against Iran and a call for the Iranian people to overthrow their government, according to reports from multiple news agencies.
The action was not prompted by an immediate threat. According to sources, Iran’s capacity to build a nuclear weapon had diminished, largely due to the success of previous U.S. Strikes against Iranian nuclear enrichment sites in June. Even as Trump has asserted that Tehran ultimately aimed to reach the United States with its missile arsenal, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded last year that it would accept Iran a decade to overcome the technological and production obstacles to developing a substantial arsenal, the New York Times reported.
There was no indication that an Iranian attack against the United States, its allies, or its bases in the region was imminent. Instead, Trump reportedly struck the Islamic Republic primarily because he perceived a moment of remarkable weakness within the Iranian government – and an opportunity for the U.S. To remove Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps after 47 years of sporadic confrontations, as detailed in an eight-minute video released by the President.
Trump’s approach differs from previous presidents who risked U.S. Forces and potentially civilians, by not spending months preparing for war. He did not present evidence of an imminent threat, nor did he address why a nuclear program he claimed to have “annihilated” eight months ago was now purportedly resurgent.
The move represents a significant gamble, with administration officials insisting there was no intention to deploy ground troops, avoiding what they termed “irresponsible endless wars.” Vice President J.D. Vance told the Washington Post days before the attack that “There’s no chance that’s going to happen,” referencing a prolonged U.S. Military engagement in the Middle East. Vance is known for his skepticism toward military interventions and has openly called for the U.S. To end its support for Ukraine.
Trump’s strategic bet rests heavily on the ability of the Iranian people, largely disarmed and disorganized, to capitalize on the situation and overthrow a government that millions find brutal and oppressive. Recent protests in Iranian cities, met with a violent crackdown resulting in thousands of deaths, may have provided the opening Trump sought.
Although, if Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who reportedly urged the launch of this war as early as December and joined the offensive from the outset – have a plan to achieve this outcome, it has not been disclosed, even to their closest allies. Several high-ranking officials from three allied nations – in Europe and the Persian Gulf – stated that they perceived little enthusiasm for the attacks during discussions with Trump administration officials and heard no plausible legal justification for striking Iran at this time. These officials requested anonymity to discuss the private conversations.
“It’s not as if Iran suddenly posed a threat to our interests for the first time in 47 years,” said Richard N. Haass, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
In his 2009 book, War of Necessity, War of Choice, Haass contrasted the first Gulf War, which had clear and achievable objectives – liberating Kuwait after Saddam Hussein’s invasion – with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. President George H.W. Bush chose not to overthrow Saddam Hussein after expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Trump’s decision Saturday, Haass suggested, more closely resembles the decision by George W. Bush to remove Saddam Hussein, based on the perceived threat he posed to international peace.
“This is a classic preventative strike, aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a capability in the future. What’s missing is the answer to the question: ‘Why now?’” Haass stated. “There were other choices: diplomatic agreements under military pressure, economic embargoes, interception of Iranian vessels.”
Under international law, the distinction between a war of necessity and a war of choice is significant. A preemptive strike – responding to an imminent attack – is considered legitimate. A strike against a weaker state is considered illegal, as was the case with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Trump dismissed the need for international legal justification, stating in January to four New York Times journalists, “I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.” He added that even if his administration was expected to adhere to international legal principles, he would ultimately decide when those principles applied to the United States. “It depends on your definition of international law,” he said.
This definition may also depend on the definition of “war.” Trump used the term to describe his actions, warning of potential casualties, but made no effort to secure congressional authorization for the use of military force, or a formal declaration of war.
While past presidents have launched major military actions without explicit congressional approval, Trump rejected the idea as unnecessary. This attack marks the seventh time Trump has authorized military action against a foreign nation since taking office.
Historians will likely focus on two questions: Why did Trump act now? And why was Iran the target? The initiative – Trump’s seventh attack against a foreign nation since assuming office – will likely be judged by its adherence to what Winston Churchill termed the “Churchill rule.”
Churchill wrote, “Never, never, never believe that war will be simple or painless, or that anyone who goes into it can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter.” He cautioned that a leader who succumbs to the “fever of war” becomes a “slave to events unpredictable and uncontrollable.”
