In international politics, starting a war is often easier than ending one. History has repeatedly shown that great powers can pull the trigger with a political decision, yet the trajectory, scope, and ultimate outcome of a war rarely remain under the sole control of its initiator. The United States’ attack on Iran sits precisely at this dangerous juncture: a war of choice launched by Washington, but one whose expansion, duration, and ultimate cost will now be shaped by Tehran. This is not merely an analytical warning; it underscores one of the deepest contradictions in Donald Trump’s foreign policy. A president who rose to power promising to end “endless wars” has now placed the United States on the threshold of what could become the longest and most complex Middle Eastern conflict of a new generation.

The first key point is the distinction between a “preemptive war” and a “preventive war”—a distinction with enormous legal and strategic implications. A preemptive war occurs in response to an imminent and immediate threat; a preventive war, by contrast, is launched against a potential future threat. The U.S. strike on Iran falls into the latter category. There was no clear evidence of an immediate threat to American territory. Iran was neither on the verge of deploying a nuclear weapon nor preparing an imminent attack against vital U.S. interests.

This war was therefore not an urgent act of self-defense but a political choice—based on projections of future risk rather than response to a present danger. The problem with such wars is that their international legitimacy is fragile, and more importantly, they lack clear temporal and geographic limits.

This war was therefore not an urgent act of self-defense but a political choice—based on projections of future risk rather than response to a present danger. The problem with such wars is that their international legitimacy is fragile, and........

© Middle East Monitor