The Question We Never Seem to Answer

In 1970, Edwin Starr asked the question: “War… what is it good for?”

More than five decades later, the question still resonates.

Written during another era of war, division, and uncertainty, its message remains timeless: before nations choose conflict, they should consider the human cost.

Now that Trump has signed an MOU with Iran aimed at ending months of conflict and reopening a path to diplomacy, Starr’s iconic anti-war anthem feels as relevant as ever.

Few would disagree that any step moving the world away from war and toward dialogue is worth celebrating.

But that raises an uncomfortable question: If diplomacy was always the desired outcome, why wasn’t it the starting point?

Before we applaud the end of this conflict, we should be honest about how we got here.

Lives were lost. Billions of dollars were spent. Entire populations lived under the threat of escalating violence. And after all of that, we find ourselves where we should have begun: at the negotiating table.

Thirteen American service members lost their lives.

The region is no safer.

Israel is no safer.

And Iran, despite being the target of military action, remains standing and now appears to possess greater international leverage than it did before the first bombs fell.

History will judge the decisions that led to this conflict, but accountability should not wait for history books.

“Leaders” who choose war over diplomacy bear responsibility for the consequences of that choice. They should be required to explain not only what was gained, but whether the cost…in lives, treasure, and global stability…was ever justified.

Peace is always preferable to war.

But peace achieved only after unnecessary conflict is not a triumph. It is a reminder of the price paid when diplomacy becomes a last resort instead of a first principle.

Fifty-six years later, Edwin Starr’s question still demands an answer.