A curious argument has appeared in recent commentary on the war.

It gained renewed prominence when otherwise serious political leaders claim that no clear explanation exists for why the conflict serves American interests.

The argument goes further, asserting that when President Donald Trump is asked for a rationale, he offers none; that his advisers offer none; and that no coherent justification has been presented.

This claim does not advance debate — it prevents it.

By asserting that no reasons exist, commentators avoid engaging with the reasons that have, in fact, been discussed for decades.

One may certainly argue that the risks of war are great.

One may contend that the campaign should have included an across-the-board diplomatic effort for our allies to reaffirm their opposition to a nuclear Iran, that the costs may outweigh the benefits, or that despite the elimination of important figures within the Iranian leadership, the regime retains more strength than expected.

These are legitimate arguments.

But to insist that there are no reasons at all is not an argument; it's a refusal to engage with the question itself.

The reasons are well known.

For nearly half a century, the United States has confronted a regime that has directed terrorism against American interests, citizens, and allies.

The leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly defined the United States as an adversary and pursued policies designed to undermine it.

The nuclear issue has made the matter still more serious.

The United States, along with its allies and the United Nations Security Council, has long regarded a nuclear-armed Iran as an unacceptable risk.

That's why successive rounds of sanctions were imposed with broad international support.

These measures were not intended to punish the Iranian people; they were designed to pressure the regime to comply with global obligations and to act as a responsible member of the international community.

It's also important to recall that the position that Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons has long been bipartisan and broadly shared among U.S. allies.

The objective itself has not been controversial; the debate has always been about the means.

Recent events have reinforced the urgency of that objective.

Whatever assumptions analysts once made about the limits of Iran's military capacity, the conflict has revealed a far deeper and more resilient structure than many expected.

Even under sustained pressure, and despite the loss of key leadership figures, Iran has demonstrated an ability to maintain coordinated military resistance across multiple fronts — including in conditions where its air power has been significantly degraded.

This matters.

A state that organizes regional proxy networks and sustains that level of coordinated resistance presents one kind of challenge.

The same state, if armed with nuclear weapons, would present a far more dangerous one.

What we are now witnessing suggests not that the original threat was overstated, but that it may have been underestimated.

There is also a deeper implication behind the claim that there are "no reasons" for the conflict. If the United States truly had no strategic interests at stake, then the only remaining explanation would be that its actions are being driven by hidden influence — most often framed as Jewish or Israeli manipulation.

That suggestion echoes one of the oldest and most destructive antisemitic myths did have now been again repeated by Joe Kent a senior Trump administration official who resigned yesterday: the claim that Jews secretly control governments and direct political decisions.

This idea has circulated for centuries and was notoriously codified in the fraudulent text The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which portrayed Jews as orchestrating world events from behind the scenes. Such narratives have repeatedly fueled suspicion, hatred, and violence.

Whether intended or not, dismissing all strategic reasoning and insisting that none exists risks sliding toward that same insinuation.

It replaces analysis with implication — and in doing so, it lends credibility to a narrative that has long been used to inflame antisemitism.

One may oppose the war.

That's a legitimate and necessary part of democratic debate. But it's not intellectually serious to argue that there are no reasons for it.

A serious debate weighs those reasons, challenges them, and tests them against alternatives.

To deny that they exist at all is not to clarify the issue.

It's to avoid it.

Mark L. Cohen practices law and was counsel at White & Case starting in 2001, after serving as international lawyer and senior legal consultant for the French aluminum producer Pechiney. Cohen was a senior consultant at a Ford Foundation Commission, an adviser to the PBS television program "The Advocates," and assistant attorney general in Massachusetts. He teaches U.S. history at the business school in Lille l'EDHEC. Read more Mark L. Cohen Insider articles — Click Here Now.