As the costs of the Iran campaign mount and Congress fights over a bill to cover them, a familiar question is circulating in Washington: Did this war have to happen? It is the right question aimed at the wrong date.
The honest ledger on this conflict does not open on Feb. 28, 2026, when the first Tomahawks flew. It opens on the night of April 13, 2024, when Iran fired more than 300 drones and missiles at a U.S. ally after an American warning, and paid no price for it.
Recall the sequence, because deterrence theory turns on exactly this kind of memory. Days before the attack, asked for his message to Iran, former President Joe Biden answered, “Don’t.” Iran did. By the Israeli military’s count, roughly 170 drones, more than 30 cruise missiles, and over 120 ballistic missiles came that night, the first direct Iranian attack on Israel in history. The interception was a triumph: American, Israeli, and allied systems knocked down about 99% of the barrage. As a demonstration of capability, it was flawless. As a demonstration of will, what followed undercut it.
Washington imposed no cost. The administration said the United States would not join any response and urged Israel to treat the successful defense as sufficient, to “take the win.” That was a defensible choice on its own terms, aimed at preventing a wider war. But deterrence is unsentimental about such choices.
Thomas Schelling built the modern theory on a single insight: A threat deters only when the adversary believes it will be carried out. Analysts at West Point’s Modern War Institute distilled the corollary years earlier, writing about the Syria red line, that if you end up having to send in ground forces, deterrence has already failed. A one-word warning paired with a zero-cost aftermath does not read, in Tehran, as restraint. It reads as a price, and the price was zero.
This was not the first data point Iranian planners had. In 2013, a chemical weapons red line in Syria was crossed without the consequence that had been threatened. April 2024 did not establish the pattern — it confirmed it. Two administrations of different parties had now signaled, and then declined to enforce. The lesson an adversary draws from that is not partisan. It is actuarial: American warnings, in that period, could be discounted to near zero, and behavior priced accordingly.
Iran priced accordingly. In February 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported 274.8 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, already the largest such stockpile ever held by a state without nuclear weapons. By May, it was 408.6 kilograms; by June 13, 2025, the eve of the Israeli strikes, 440.9 kilograms. Sixty percent enrichment is a short technical step from weapons-grade, and roughly 42 kilograms, further enriched, yields one weapon’s worth of material. That stockpile did not grow in defiance of American deterrence. It grew in the space where deterrence was absent.
It is worth being precise about what came next, because the record does not support a caricature in either direction. When Israeli aircraft first struck the nuclear program in June 2025, the U.S. response was not to open with maximum force. It was to offer Tehran a final off-ramp, in terms no one could misread: Stop now, before it is too late. Force followed only after that exit was refused. Whatever one concludes about the campaign that followed, the sequence matters: The escalation to “death and destruction” was the last step after a warning became credible, not the first. That is the difference between a threat that is believed and one that is not, and it is the whole of the argument.
Tehran refused the exit, and then narrowed the world’s view of what it was doing. In July 2025, Iran suspended cooperation with the IAEA. By late February 2026, the agency could no longer account for the current size, composition, or whereabouts of that stockpile, having lost access to the affected enrichment facilities. A regime that had absorbed a one-word warning, a symbolic reprisal, and a limited strike, losing nothing it valued at any step, now held nine bombs’ worth of material at an unknown location, racing an inspection blackout. That was the inheritance that made Feb. 28 arithmetic rather than choice.
The record also deserves a sentence about cost tolerance, because this is where the analysis becomes bipartisan in an uncomfortable direction. Deterrence is re-established only when an adversary sees a state absorb pain and hold on anyway. This campaign was held under real strain: NATO as an alliance sat it out; beyond Israel’s parallel operation, allied forces largely stayed out, and some regional partners declined even the use of their airspace. Domestic support fell within weeks, and the funding fight in Congress was bitter.
The point is not that one leader was brave and others were not — it is structural. Resolve shown at no cost teaches an adversary nothing, because anyone will hold a line that costs nothing to hold. Resolve becomes legible only when maintaining it hurts, and the state maintains it anyway. For the first time in a generation, Tehran observed an American commitment survive a sustained bad news cycle, and adversaries beyond Iran were watching that same demonstration.
ROME JUST ASKED THE IRAN QUESTION TRUMP CAN NO LONGER IGNORE
None of this is an argument that war is cheap. The campaign’s direct costs run to roughly $40 billion, and the full strategic accounting will take years. It is an argument about where the invoice originated. Wars of this kind are compound interest on deterrence lapses. Every unanswered barrage, every unenforced line, every “take the win” lowered the price Tehran expected to pay for aggression, and the debt compounded until it came due at once, in munitions and in risk.
The lesson belongs to both parties, because an adversary does not grade on a partisan curve. Iranian planners reason in decades, but American deterrence has lately been reset every four years, so Tehran learned to wait out whichever posture it disliked. Rebuilding a reputation for consequences is slow, costly work, and this campaign was its down payment. The cheaper path was always available and always will be: Mean the warning the first time, enforce it the first time, and never let a one-word threat become something an adversary can safely ignore. Peace through strength is not a slogan so much as a savings plan, and April 2024 is what defaulting on it looks like.
Burak Oktenli is a researcher in autonomous systems governance and deterrence. He holds an MBA and a Master of Professional Studies in Applied Intelligence from Georgetown University, and his commentary has appeared in the Washington Examiner, RealClearDefense, RUSI Commentary, The Defense Post, and West Point’s Modern War Institute.