Is war with Iran worth it?

Shaun McCutcheon: War can be justified, but only as a last resort

OPINION — As the United States confronts the growing danger posed by Iran’s terrorist regime, Americans are again faced with hard questions about war and its costs. Iran’s leaders have funded terror, threatened allies, murdered dissidents and destabilized the Middle East for decades. 

There are times in history when military force becomes necessary to defend innocent life, preserve liberty and confront genuine evil. America cannot ignore serious threats to its people or its allies. Yet, even when war may be justified, it should never be embraced casually or viewed as desirable.

The necessity of some wars does not diminish their human cost or erase the obligation to exhaust every peaceful alternative first. War reshapes economies, governments, families and futures long after the fighting ends. Even if military action succeeds in achieving important national security goals, Americans should still ask whether diplomacy, deterrence or other forms of pressure could have prevented the conflict before lives were lost. History teaches that wars rarely unfold according to plan, and their consequences often outlast the political leaders who begin them.

The uncomfortable truth is that war is the failure of speech. Long before nations began to fire their missiles, diplomacy had usually broken down, communication had stopped and leaders had abandoned the difficult work of negotiation. Free speech exists because civilized societies understand that words are infinitely preferable to violence. Debate allows grievances and solutions to surface while protecting investment. Dialogue creates opportunities for compromise before conflict escalates beyond control.

Nations that stop talking eventually start fighting. Diplomacy is more difficult. It can often be frustrating because it requires patience, humility, compromise and understanding other cultures that may not function the same way. Military action can appear decisive by comparison. Yet, diplomacy has often achieved what wars could not. Negotiations ended the Cold War without direct military confrontation between nuclear superpowers.

Diplomatic agreements have prevented conflicts, freed prisoners, opened economies and reduced tensions that otherwise could have spiraled into catastrophe.

Of course, evil and aggression exist. Sometimes force is unavoidable in the defense of innocent life and liberty. America cannot ignore genuine threats or pretend that hostile regimes pose no danger. There are moments when military action becomes necessary to protect freedom, but reaching this point should come only after exhausting every other conceivable path.

War should always be viewed as a last resort, not a first instinct. A healthy society does not glorify conflict or romanticize military intervention. It recognizes the permanent scars left behind on soldiers, civilians, families and future generations. Every bomb dropped represents not only destruction abroad, but resources diverted from opportunities at home. Every conflict expands government power, increases debt, and risks unintended consequences that leaders rarely predict accurately.

The negative effects of war on soldiers, physically and emotionally, hurt their families and future generations. The loss of life, limb and peace of mind affects many long after peace treaties are signed. If not decisively resolved, war creates resentment that fuels retaliatory conflicts. The history of wars should be clearly understood so that we can accurately determine if there are any benefits. 

While peace through strength is a virtue, the greatest strength of free societies is not the ability to destroy enemies. The greatest strengths of a free society are its people’s ability to debate, lead, pursue, innovate and build.

America became a beacon to the world not because of military power but because of constitutional liberties that protected free expression and encouraged peaceful political change.

The First Amendment embodies confidence that open dialogue is stronger than intimidation.

At its core, free speech is an act of faith in humanity itself. It reflects the belief that people can resolve differences without killing one another. War represents the breakdown of that faith. Sometimes defensive action is tragically unavoidable, but civilized nations should never lose sight of the principle that words save lives in ways violence never can.

If the conflict with Iran teaches Americans anything, it should remind us that preserving peace requires more than military readiness. It requires leaders courageous enough to pursue dialogue even when doing so is politically unpopular. It requires citizens willing to reject the seductive idea that force alone can solve every problem. Most important, it requires defending the freedoms that make peaceful resolution possible in the first place.

Speech is not violence, and violence is not speech. One creates pathways toward peace, and the other leaves behind graves, debt, pain and generations struggling to rebuild what words might have preserved.

Shaun McCutcheon is a free-speech advocate and an electrical engineer. He wrote this for InsideSources.com. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.

Phyllis Bennis: Our wars haven’t been worth it, and not just in Iran

OPINION — This Memorial Day, polls show nearly two-thirds of U.S. voters oppose the war against Iran. They’re right. After decades of war since 9/11, Americans now largely agree: War isn’t worth it.

The Iran war has killed thousands of Iranians and Lebanese and displaced hundreds of thousands more. People in poor countries around the world are facing fuel shortages, power outages and food insecurity, with much worse to come. 

Here in the United States, the war has already cost more than $50 billion, and the cost is only going up — not just at the gas pump but in opportunity. For that $50 billion, we could have paid for healthcare for 3 million people in this country and gotten about 1.5 million kids into Head Start, according to the IPS National Priorities Project.

Which makes us safer?

President Trump would like us to believe that no price is too high to stop Iran’s “nuclear threat.” But Iran isn’t a nuclear threat. Year after year, including 2026, U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Iran is not building nuclear weapons.

In 2015, Iran agreed to cut its stockpile of enriched uranium, reduce its reactors, and submit to unprecedentedly intrusive U.N. inspections. The United States, in return, agreed to end many of the sanctions that were crippling Iran’s economy. 

 It worked. Intelligence agencies around the world, including in the United States, agreed that Iran was complying. U.N. inspectors kept a watchful eye on Iran’s reactors, traffic through the Strait of Hormuz flowed freely, and Iran was still not trying to build a nuclear weapon, maintaining that a bomb would violate Islamic law.

However, Trump tore up the agreement in 2018. He didn’t pretend Iran was violating it; he just claimed he could “get a better deal.” He couldn’t. 

Instead, Trump joined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ratcheted up threats against Iran. Eventually, those threats turned into reality — first in a short-term bombing campaign in June 2025 and then a full-scale U.S.-Israeli war this year.

Despite repeated ceasefire declarations and claims from the White House that “we’ve won,” the war continues months later. Thousands are dead, gas prices are shockingly high, and the Strait of Hormuz (which was running fine before Trump trampled the nuclear deal) remains largely closed.

It’s easy to say that diplomacy works and war does not. That’s not just a statement of principle — it’s the truth.

Diplomacy is the only strategy that’s ever worked to change Iran’s behavior. It wasn’t because the U.S. asked nicely. It was because the U.S. negotiated seriously, changed its own aggressive behavior, and stopped using its economic, political and strategic power as acts of war against Iran. 

Is this war worth the human, economic or environmental costs? Clearly not. You could say the same of Trump’s other second-term conflicts — including his support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and his attacks on Somalia, Yemen, Venezuela and Nigeria.

In fact, today most Americans would agree that none of the major wars in this country’s recent memory have been worthwhile — not in Vietnam, Central America, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iraq again.

For the $16 trillion the U.S. had spent on the military after 9/11 before the Iran war, we could have made transformative investments in healthcare, education and renewable energy. We could have erased student debt and virtually wiped out child poverty at home and globally.

Instead, our leaders continue to spend money on wars they think will make the United States the undisputed power in the world — wars that instead kill millions of people abroad, endanger U.S. troops and make life harder at home.

Veterans know this. “The U.S. has been at war in one form or another since my deployment in the Persian Gulf, 36 years ago,” said Michael McPhearson, executive director of Veterans for Peace.

“Trillions of tax dollars spent, thousands of U.S. military service members dead, and tens of thousands wounded. The toll on the rest of the world is even more staggering, while warmongers and those who send us to war get richer,” he added.

“It's time to invest in people and life and stop spending money on death and destruction,” McPhearson said.

I agree — and so do most Americans.

Phyllis Bennis is a Middle East expert and directs the New Internationalism Project of the Institute for Policy Studies. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.