Of all the reasons to impeach Trump, the one selected in that case was the most precarious.

It should be unacceptable for the president to unilaterally make such a risky military maneuever, however you can cite some precedent in every administration for over 60 years. So you have to answer why only this time is the president impeachable for a unilateral strike when that has been normal for presidents for a very long time.

I get it, it's unconscionable how Netanyahu has treated Gaza and the West Bank, it's supremely risky how they and the US engaged with Iran. It's shocking this level of military risk can be incurred by the executive branch without warning. However without some laws indicating the status quo has changed, there's nothing to hold the office accountable for being consistent with every other administration in living memory.

Besides, while reactions over Gaza have significantly more popular sympathy for the Palestinians, the popular opinion of the Iranian regime is not so sympathetic, and thus far the nature of the strikes seem to be more surgical in nature than what has happened in Gaza, so this isn't exactly the political opinion to bet everything on.

Trump's administration almost daily gives more unique and blatantly illegal behaviors that could be the focus of articles of impeachment, and this was just a poor choice.