Aside from my Holocaust studies, little else has haunted me as thoroughly from my time as a graduate student as the “Theory of Total War.” An informal concept in the realm of International Relations, Total War Theory—also known as the Theory of Absolute Destruction—postulates that complete war, or unrestrained warfare, is necessary to achieve “complete victory,” meaning the total annihilation of one’s enemy to ensure regime change and the best chance for a lasting peace. This theory haunted me for two reasons. First, in an effort to achieve total destruction of the enemy, civilian populations and infrastructure often become legitimate military targets under Total War doctrine. Second, despite the obvious moral problems associated with the blurring of civilian and military targets, the theory’s claim that total war is often necessary for enduring peace and successful regime change is compelling given historical precedent.

World War II is often cited as a prime example of total war, with the Allied nations emerging as total victors whose unrelenting tactics forced unconditional surrender on Germany and Japan, minimizing the possibility of those nations seeking a rematch. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan exemplify regimes that had to be totally annihilated to bring the war to an end. Japan is perhaps the clearest example, with the argument that the atomic bombs were the necessary catalyst for complete victory and an eventual enduring peace between victor and vanquished.

Upon reflection, it is a remarkable fact of human history that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan could be so radically transformed after such total annihilation—and all in less than a few decades. Even more remarkable still is that America, having inflicted terrible horror on Japan in order to end the war faster and with fewer deaths on both sides, would go on to enjoy so friendly an alliance with it. Total War Theory explains that, as counterintuitive and brutal as it may seem, the civility between the US and its WWII opponents exists precisely because the US victory was so thorough and nonnegotiable. In contrast, US involvement in Vietnam or Afghanistan serves as examples of conflicts where, because warfare was only ever employed in a limited capacity, complete victory was never really possible. Total War Theory thus makes some interesting postulations: for instance, that Vietnam might have become another thriving nation and a strong US ally, like Japan, had the US waged total war; and that, targeted assassinations and strikes aside, it was entirely unrealistic for the United States to attempt regime change in Afghanistan without being willing to wage total war. To put Total War Theory crudely: if you half-ass war, you can’t expect a full victory—as recent history shows.

Scarier still are the ethical questions raised by Total War Theory. Is it possible to achieve complete victory and regime change without blurring the lines between civilians and combatants—something that often happens in all-out war? Historically speaking, even the Allies in WWII—who by and large attempted to fight ethically when possible and who certainly held the moral high ground over their opponents—nonetheless resorted to practices consistent with total war (bombing towns and infrastructure, atomic warfare) in order to achieve victory. And if we grant that total war is sometimes necessary, as it was in WWII, to achieve lasting victory, how do Judeo-Christian nations reckon with this unfortunate fact? How does one square just war theory with the hypothetical necessity of total war to secure enduring peace? These questions have hung over me ever since encountering Total War Theory in my graduate program, and I have no answers—or at least not ones that I like.

I’ve had cause to think of these ethical dilemmas yet again with the current events unfolding in the Middle East. In the context of Total War Theory, Israel’s war in Gaza, as well as Israel and the US’s recent strikes against Iran, paint a bleak picture of the cost of peace for the region and the lengths to which Israel may go to achieve it. If limited war stunts the full metamorphosis necessary to transform an enemy nation and secure peace, then the recent strikes against Iran offer little in terms of long-term safety for the Jewish homeland. While Iran’s nuclear program may have been thwarted with the help of the US, without genuine and total regime change, the problem of terror and aggression still remains a pressing issue for Israel and the safety of the Jewish people. As such, as decisive and proactive as the Israeli and US strikes on Iran have been portrayed, they are—at least according to Total War Theory—nowhere near enough to secure the peace that has eluded Israel for so long.

Israel’s proactive approach to threats—their war in Gaza and preemptive strikes on Iran—suggests that they intuitively understand this. That Israel has exhibited such reluctance to sign a ceasefire absent overwhelming evidence that the threat is gone suggests that without complete victory, and therefore total war, there can be no lasting peace. Of course, the fact that Iran’s regime has sworn to obliterate Israel makes the Israelis’ reluctance to come to terms understandable.

I cannot offer much in the way of a helpful prognosis as to how and when Israel might wage total war—only that I am haunted by an increasing suspicion that, despite how offensive and decisive their recent actions may seem, Israel only has two options: total war or a slow return to the status quo. And their breach of the ceasefire and bold offensive actions suggest that they are aware of and lean toward the former.

I hope that I am wrong and that there is a middle road to peace—a road with less death and annihilation, and in which just war methodologies are not put to the test—and that recent events are enough to provide for a more stable Middle East for Israel and all peoples in the region. But I find it increasingly likely that at some point in the near future, Israel may adopt the policy that Winston Churchill so boldly spoke of in his first speech as Prime Minister before the House of Commons: “You ask ‘what is our policy?’ I will say, it is to wage war with all our might, with all the strength that God can give us.” I can, however, conclude with two consolations should all-out war be upon the Middle East: namely, that the US may remain as uninvolved as possible (at least directly), and that if Israel were to wage total war, then—with that, at least according to Total War Theory—comes the possibility of a new and lasting peace.