Iran: Is this war just?

The questions are clear; the future is not

Can the US/Israeli military action against Iran be supported as conforming to just-war principles. Not without grave difficulty.

We cannot confidently render a final verdict until we have a solid grasp of the facts— if we ever do. For now there are too many variables to allow for a simple solution to the equation. We do not know the details of the negotiations between the US and Iran prior to the air strikes, nor do we have access to the intelligence on which the White House relied. For good reason the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that political leaders are ultimately responsible for making decisions about the justice of military action, since they alone should have those facts at hand.

And of course even world leaders do not have all the information they want, nor any guarantee that the “facts” with which they are presented are accurate. Nor can anyone now put too much credence on the reports that come from the front, filtered through various partisan lenses. “Truth is the first casualty of war,” as the old saying goes. Decisions about war and peace are always made on the basis of incomplete information.

All that said, we can ask questions about how the US/Israeli offensive does or does not conform to the principles of the just-war tradition.

But before doing that, a few preliminary observations:

1. The government of Iran is and for decades has been an evil, dangerous, pernicious regime. It has brutalized its own citizens, trampled on human rights, and sponsored terrorist violence abroad. If that regime is eliminated— if!—the world will be a better place. However, a good result does not by itself demonstrate that a war is just. God can write straight with crooked lines.

2. The Ayatollah Khameini is dead, and I cannot say I will miss him. But the gleeful reaction to his death in some circles is unseemly. In a just war the death of enemies is regarded as a tragic necessity, not a cause for rejoicing.

3. The reports about Iranian people dancing in the streets, welcoming the US/Israeli attacks and the demise of the mullahs’ regime, should be treated with extreme caution. First, because those celebrations are premature; the regime is not yet dead. Second, because we don’t know how many Iranians wish for the fall of the regime, and how many will still fight to support it (or at least to repel invaders). Let’s be honest; if the Trump administration were ousted this week, there would be some Americans dancing in the streets.

4. By the same logic, we cannot take too much comfort in the news that the first strikes eliminating virtually all of Iran’s top political and military leaders. It seems clear that Iran’s military capabilities were severely— perhaps fatally— degraded. But second- and third-echelon military leaders could still muster the remaining forces. And if there is a struggle for power, even more radical factions could emerge, producing the sort of chaos and destruction we saw in Iraq.

Cynics will note that both Trump and Israel’s Netanyahu are facing elections this year, and a military victory might bolster the flagging poll results for their parties.

The just-war questions

Now on to the questions posed by the just-war tradition:

1. Was there a just cause for US to make war?

a. Again, Iran under the ayatollahs has been an evil regime. But we cannot attack every government that we despise, or every government that violates fundamental human rights. There is, unfortunately, too much evil in the world to be defeated by any human effort.

b. Since Cicero, just-war theorists have agreed that a just cause must be either the righting of a grave wrong or the repulse of an invader. Iran obviously has not invaded the US, although the regime has sponsored attacks on Americans, American interests, and American allies. Is that sufficient cause?

c. President Trump has insisted that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. It is easy to agree; an Iranian regime armed with the Bomb would be a much greater menace. But what is the principle by which the US, which has thousands of nuclear warheads, proclaims that another country cannot have any? Just a few months ago, after the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, we were told that the regime’s drive for a nuclear capability had been set back by many months. Did something change, or where those boasts false? Was an Iranian nuclear weapon an imminent possibility?

d. Was Iran poised to attack the US— again, imminently? President Trump says that was the case. Was he certain? To be fair, there had been a good deal of saber-rattling on both sides during the past weeks of tense negotiations, and Trump had threatened to attack Iran.

e. Secretary of State Rubio said that the exact timing of the US strikes was fixed because we knew Israel was going to attack, so we joined the offensive. Does that suggest that the US might have held off, because the threat to us was not imminent? If an ally can dictate when our country goes to war, that is cause for concern— a concern that George Washington expressed when he warned against “entangling alliances.”

f. Some observers say that Iran has been making war on the US for 47 years. Certainly the relationship between the two nations has been hostile, and there is ample evidence that Iran has done its utmost to destroy the “Great Satan.” Does that mean that the US should have attacked long ago? The claim that the Iranian regime is an imminent threat must have a “use by” date. Had the situation gradually, or suddenly, become much more dangerous? Why?

2. Had all means of settling the dispute peacefully been exhausted?

a. “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war,” said Winston Churchill— a man noted for his willingness to fight when necessary. Negotiations with Iran had been tedious and unproductive. Were they hopeless?

b. Iranian officials say that they believed the negotiations were still continuing. In fact, they say, their top leaders had gathered in one place to discuss a response to the latest US demand. We took advantage of their meeting to destroy them. In the future, will other nations’ leaders be reluctant to negotiate, fearing that the talks are the pretext for an ambush?

3. Was the war declared? Here the answer is a simple No.

a. The US Constitution gives Congress has the responsibility for declaring war. The War Powers Resolution gives the President a good deal of latitude, so that this offensive is not illegal. But does that satisfy the requirements of justice in war? “No war is held to be lawful unless it is officially announced,” wrote Cicero. The reason should be evident: a declaration of war gives enemies a fair chance to defend themselves, and neutral parties a chance to escape the fighting.

b. The US/Israeli attacks violated the international standards set forth by the United Nations. While it is easy to point to the failures of the UN, the principle that no nation should attack another without international sanction must count for something. Otherwise what is our basis for condemning Russia’s attack on Ukraine, or insisting that China must not invade Taiwan?

4. Is the cause of the war— the evil that is being addressed— proportion to the destruction that the war is likely to cause?

Of all the questions involved in just-war analysis, proportionality is the most difficult to gauge, because we cannot know how much damage the war will do.

a. Iranian sources charge that more than 1,000 civilians were killed in the first days of the offensive. Their perspective is obviously biased, but given the number of air strikes, the figure is not unreasonable.

b. The fighting has already spread past the borders of Iran. A more reliable source, the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need, reports that more than 30,000 people have been driven from their homes in Lebanon.

c. Despite early assurances of a quick and decisive victory, the White House is now conceding that the campaign in Iran may continue for weeks if not months. This, too, is a familiar refrain; will it continue for years?

d. The Middle East has been a tinder box for generations. Will the defeat of a radical Islamist regime (assuming that it is finally defeated) make things better or worse. The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano remarked that the fighting is “once again igniting a part of the world that has already suffered from a situation of great and dangerous instability for decades. And it is impossible to say with certainty when it will end.”

5. Does the war have a reasonable expectation of bringing a just peace?

a. The US, with help from Israel, can defeat Iran’s military. That is not in doubt, but neither is it the key question. What will that victory produce?

b. Will a new Iranian government eliminate the tyranny of the mullahs, or replace it with another sort of misrule? Will competing factions continue to fight, stalling the country’s recovery? Will the people of Iran be better off, a year or five years from now? Or will they suffer the fate of their neighbors in Iraq?

c. St. Augustine taught that the only cause for a just war it to secure a just peace. What is the American vision for peace in Iran? What is our country’s end goal?