Let me say at the outset that I agree with the view that it would be bad for the Iranian regime to acquire a nuclear weapon. How close it is to actually acquiring one, I do not know. I do know that the claim that such acquisition is imminent has been made for decades now, and yet it has still not happened. In any event, it is Israel rather than the U.S. that would be threatened by such acquisition, and Israel has proven quite capable of taking care of itself. There is no need for the U.S. to enter the war, and it is in neither the U.S.’s interests nor the interests of the rest of the region for it to do so.
Yet President Trump has this week indicated that the U.S. is joining the conflict. He has said that “we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” and that “we know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding… we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.” The “we” implies that the U.S. has already entered the war on Israel’s side. He has said:
Iran should have signed the “deal” I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!
Taken at face value, this indicates that the U.S. will participate in an attack that will threaten the entire city of Tehran. And he has called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” Meanwhile, Israel is indicating that regime change is among the aims of its war with Iran.
There are two criteria of just war theory that the president is violating, at least if we take his words at face value. First, for a war to be just, it must be fought using only morally legitimate means. This includes a prohibition on intentionally targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. To be sure, just war theory allows that there can be cases where harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure can be permissible, but only if (a) this is the foreseen but unintended byproduct of an attack on military targets, and (b) the harm caused to civilians and civilian infrastructure is not out of proportion to the good achieved by destroying those military targets.
It is the standard view among just war theorists that attacks such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the firebombing of Dresden, violated this criterion of just war theory and thus were gravely immoral. They are manifestly immoral if the intention was to kill and terrorize civilians. But they were also immoral, even if the intention was to damage military targets, because the harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure was massively out of proportion to the good achieved by attacking such military targets.
Now, for President Trump to warn that “everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran” indicates that the U.S. and Israel intend a bombing campaign that will cause massive destruction to the city as a whole. It is hard to see how that could be consistent with the just war condition of using only morally legitimate means. This is true, by the way, even if (as is unlikely) the nearly ten million people of Tehran could in fact be evacuated. Civilian homes and other property, and not just civilian lives, must, as far as reasonably possible, be respected in a just war.
The call for “unconditional surrender” is also highly problematic. As the Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe said of Allied war demands during World War II in her famous essay “Mr. Truman’s Degree”:
It was the insistence on unconditional surrender that was the root of all evil. The connection between such a demand and the need to use the most ferocious methods of warfare will be obvious. And in itself the proposal of an unlimited objective in war is stupid and barbarous.
When a country tells an enemy’s government and citizens that it will settle for nothing less than their surrender with no conditions at all – thereby putting themselves entirely at their foes’ mercy – they are obviously bound to fight more tenaciously and brutally, which will tempt the threatening country to similarly brutal methods of warfare in response.
The second criterion of just war theory most relevant to the present crisis is that in order to be just, a military action must not result in evils that are worse than the one being redressed. Now, as the history of the aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan shows, regime change in the Middle East is likely to have catastrophic consequences for all concerned. Both of those conflicts resulted in years of civil war, tens or even hundreds of thousands of casualties, and, in the case of Afghanistan, a successor regime hostile to the U.S. As Sohrab Ahmari argues this week at UnHerd, similar chaos is bound to follow a collapse of the Iranian regime. Regime change thus seems too radical a war aim. More limited measures, like those that have for decades now kept Iran’s nuclear weapons program from succeeding, are the most that can be justified.
As they routinely do, Trump’s defenders may suggest that his words should not be taken at face value, but interpreted as mere “trash talk” or perhaps as exercises in “thinking out loud” rather than as final policy decisions. But this helps their case not at all. War is, needless to say, an enterprise of enormous gravity, calling for maximum prudence and moral seriousness. Even speaking about the possibility must be done with great caution. (Think of the chaos that could follow upon trying quickly to evacuate a city of nearly ten million people, even if there were no actual plan to bomb it.) A president who is instead prone to woolly thinking and flippant speech about matters of war is a president whose judgment about them cannot be trusted. (And as I have argued elsewhere, he has already in other ways proven himself to have unsound judgment about such things.)
It also should not be forgotten that for Trump to bring the U.S. into a major new war in the Middle East would be contrary to his own longstanding rhetoric. For example, in 2019, he said:
The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE…..
But then, contradictory and reckless statements are par for the course with Trump. For example, Trump has portrayed himself as pro-life, but then came out in support of keeping abortion pills available and of federal funding for IVF. He promised to bring prices down, but has pursued trade policies that are likely to make prices higher. His DOGE project was predicated on the need to bring federal spending under control, but now he supports a bill that will add another $3 trillion to the national debt. And so on. His record is one that can be characterized as unstable and unprincipled at best and shamelessly dishonest at worst. This reinforces the conclusion that his judgment on grave matters such as war cannot be trusted.
I conclude that Trump’s apparent plan to bring the U.S. into Israel’s war with Iran is not justifiable and that he ought to be resisted on this matter (as he ought to be on other matters, such as abortion and IVF).
UPDATE 6/19: UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers interviews John Mearsheimer and Yoram Hazony on the Israel-Iran war. It’s a superb discussion – sober, intelligent, nuanced and well-informed, precisely the opposite of most discourse about these issues. Though coming from very different perspectives, Mearsheimer and Hazony agree that it is better for the U.S. to stay out of the conflict.
While some have claimed that only the U.S. can take out the Iranian facility at Fordow, Hazony disagrees. Moreover, it is uncertain that America’s “bunker buster” bomb really would destroy Fordow. And even if it did, Fordow could be quickly rebuilt, one expert opining that an attack “might set the program back [only] six months to a year.”
Today, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that Iran can now, within just a couple of weeks, produce a nuclear weapon that would “pose an existential threat not just to Israel but to the United States and to the entire world.” Yet she also announced that President Trump would be taking a couple of weeks to decide what to do. Needless to say, her first statement is very hard to take seriously in light of her second statement. Moreover, Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had recently stated that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”
In short, both the case for U.S. intervention and the administration’s credibility on the issue appear to be falling apart.
(Editor’s note: This essay was first posted, in slightly different form, on the author’s blog on June 17th and updated on June 19th. It is posted here with the kind permission of the author.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The entire world has a vested interest in Iran not having a nuclear weapon. Iran is a theocracy that supports terrorism around the world. They treat women in their country as chattel. They strap explosives onto children to blow up their enemies. They were behind Hamas’ entry into Israel to rape, torture, kidnap and murder Israeli citizens. Unfortunately, the Bidens and Obamas of this world thought it was a good idea to send billions of taxpayer dollars to support a barbaric regime. Now, what was your question?
The problem with terrorism, it has no borders, but it does have Countries that sponsor terrorism warfare. How can it not be just to destroy the weapons of those Countries who sponsor terrorism in order to protect innocent human life from harm.
Especially those countries that have used those weapons for terror bombing, right?
Oh, wait. That should be “that country”, not “those countries”.
“I do know that the claim that such acquisition is imminent has been made for decades now, and yet it has still not happened. In any event, it is Israel rather than the U.S. that would be threatened by such acquisition, and Israel has proven quite capable of taking care of itself. There is no need for the U.S. to enter the war, and it is in neither the U.S.’s interests nor the interests of the rest of the region for it to do so.”
********
From what I’ve heard, it’s taken years & years for Iran to get to the point where they are capable of having nuclear weapons. That’s the reason it hasn’t happened. Israeli intelligence has been watching & planning for a long time so it doesn’t happen. God forbid.
Israel is taking a hit for the rest of the region & for the rest of the world. We should be thanking them.
The Iranians still apparently have underground nuclear facilities that Israel can’t penetrate without our assistance supplying special weapons/aircraft. We’ll see.
It’s a very dangerous situation no matter what course we take. God bless & protect Israel & the innocent civilians in Iran.
“The Iranians still apparently have underground nuclear facilities that Israel can’t penetrate without our assistance supplying special weapons/aircraft. We’ll see.”
Everyone says this with a straight face, but everyone knows (or should know) that Israel had its own stockpile of nuclear weapons since the 1960s. Why don’t they drop one of those on Fordow instead of draging us in to their mess?
Cf.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
Do you believe Israel wants to nuke Iran and expose innocent Iranian civilians to that?
They want to take out the regime’s capability to make nuclear weapons. Not destroy Iranians.
Now tell me that Kim Jong Un doesn’t nuke South Korea and Japan because the loss of life would break his compassionate heart.
Israel’s leadership does not hesitate to create “collateral damage” when they deem it to be in their interests. They do, however, have a decent share of at least one virtue: prudence. They might not care if the whole population of Iran were to die overnight, but they know that Israel’s existence is heavily dependent on support from the West (especially the US), and that they would lose that support if they were to use nukes. Support from the US (and to some degree Western Europe) is an existential matter for them.
Dr. Feser is technically correct. We have no smoking gun admission that the Iranians are enriching their uranium beyond the level useful for all civilian applications in order to build nuclear weapons.
However, we do know that the International Atomic Energy Agency has stated that the Iranians are secretly expanding their uranium enrichment program beyond any possible civilian application.
Further, the international nuclear watchdogs are unable to monitor this expansion since it is being conducted in secret. And so they cannot assure the world that nuclear weapons are not the Iranians’ objective.
Neither can they give us any other reason that the Iranians might be doing this.
Yes, President Trump is a big talker, notoriously imprecise in his verbal communication.
Yet I don’t see any other logical explanation — apart from nuclear weapon development — for the actions of the Iranians.
And the stakes are high enough to warrant caution on our commander-in-chief’s part.
Especially if we take the mullahs at their word — that they wish to see Israel, and, for that matter, America, dead.
Yes, thank you brineyman. We’re the big Satan and Israel is Satan’s little brother per the Iranian regime.
It’s a shame because I knew someone from Iran who was a lovely, gracious person. They deserve much better. Maybe they’ll get a better life after all this. I hope so.
Feser offers a very moral, reasonable assessment of the highly complex Iran US war crisis. Key facts for the US to refrain from attacking Iran are the question whether the attack as planned will destroy Iran’s major nuclear facility. Whether it does or not we’ll be drawn into a fourth, likely endless succession of Middle East wars.
Furthermore, Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal and air delivery capability that can annihilate Iran as a viable nation. It appears the moral argument offered by Feser is the right choice. What may have success is the wait with hope of forcing the Iranians to negotiate. That course favors a peaceful solution.
If Iran gets a Nuke, would they actually use it on Israel, knowing full well, Israeli retaliation (Israel has nukes), would result in Tehran being a radioactive heap of ashes with millions dead? Are they that crazy? Maybe that’s what it will take to snap them into their senses?
Rather than public bluster, a quiet, private warning to the Mullahs might be more effective.
So far, precisely no nation has used a nuke against another nation capable of retaliating.
William, I very much agree with your position on the value of “quiet diplomacy.” Unfortunately, we do not seem to have that sort of leadership at this time. I am concerned about Iran because of religious extremism. This becomes a sort of wild card in attempting to convince reasonable men to avoid the unreasonable (using nuclear weapons). All that aside, a very well written and thoughtful article. I will end by saying that the rush to war and bombing campaigns comes all too easy for those who have never worn the uniform or placed their lives in harms way.
Tulsi Gabbard’s statements about Iran’s intent are absurd. A nation with no designs for a nuclear weapon does not build a peaceful, civilian nuclear facility underneath a mountain, nor enrich uranium to an extent that is useless for power plants.
“[T]he claim that such acquisition is imminent has been made for decades now, and yet it has still not happened.” Dr. Feser misunderstands exactly what is being said and what it implies. Within the past year, given the quantity of highly enriched uranium the regime now possesses, the Iranians are on the threshold of having a nuclear weapon. This does not mean they will ever have one. However, it means that they would be only weeks from producing one whenever they decided to proceed. THAT is why Israel has acted at this moment. And we should support Israel by destroying the Fordow site. And we should do it immediately.
And for his claim that we are on course for “an attack that will threaten the entire city of Tehran,” this is pure nonsense. No one in the administration has stated or suggested such a thing, and the Israelis themselves are conducting precision attacks on military targets and infrastructure that directly support the IRGC. The city of Teheran is not in any danger of destruction.
There will not be any major new war in the region, and for the simple reason that Iran has NO allies anywhere in the region. Finally, I am sick and tired of hearing about the “just war theory.” Those who continually harp on it appear to believe that every nation must suffer its own Pearl Harbor attack – even in this age a vastly more destructive means – before they can take action against an adversary like Iran, the region’s leading sponsor of terrorism and armed conflict, and a nation that calls for the destruction of Israel – and struggles for this outcome – every single day.
We agree Mr Williams.
No one seems to be backing Iran’s nuclear program right now except a few naive Americans. None of Iran’s neighbors want a nuclear armed Iran whether or not they support Israel.
We wouldn’t countenance a situation like this in our backyard and neither should Israel.
That said, I’m more a pacifist than a warmonger. Most wars were avoidable and unnecessary. But self defense is legit and a part of Church teaching.
Let’s hope that your position prevails.
The arguments for every war are basically the same – safety, peace, democracy and toppling a foreign “regime”. The Americans fall for them every time.
Without tossing out an amateur opinion, yours truly is reminded of the 1980s when three different national bishops’ conferences floated three different non-doctrinal pastorals about the nuclear threat of that moment.
Major differences were on the very nature of the problem itself: the risk of collateral damage or the “slippery slope” (American), the strategic imbalance of surface armaments (tanks) on the eastern front (German), or the intrinsic threat of Marxist ideology (French). See “The Challenge to Peace” (Pastoral Letter of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1983); and James Schall, S.J., editor for an Ignatius Press publication (1984): “Out of Justice, Peace” (Joint Pastoral Letter of the West German Bishops), and “Winning the Peace” (Joint Pastoral Letter of the French Bishops).
Today, the immediate imponderable is not the former Soviet Union, but the mindset of a non-Western and radical Islamic regime caught in the 7th century and armed with 21st-century Western technology, but now on the ropes. Plus the Law of Unintended Consequences and the memory of Sarajevo in August 1914…
The problem, in the Middle East, and now beyond, is Islam.
So Edward Feser is a political pundit now. And CWR has decided to weigh in on matters of foreign policy. Is this a wise move? Do we want to go down that road? I respect Feser for his hard work as a teacher of Catholic philosophy, but is he immersed enough in the world of international affairs and geopolitics so as to be sufficiently informed to represent publicly a journal that purports to represent Catholic teaching? For all I know he might be right, but would you publish an article that argues the contrary position? If so, what has CWR become?
The fundamental and progressive argument if that only because Israel is more civilized than the Islamic terrorists and regime that Israel shall be held to a higher standard than they would every hope for or expect from the Islamic terrorists and their moral and financial supporters. The war is the middle east is between a clash of cultures at the tactical level (against Islams Little Satan) and a clash of civilizations (Islam’s Great Satan) at the strategic level for centuries. Islam, by their own admission, is devoted to the total destruction of infidels, all peoples that do not submit to Allah.
Q: Should the U.S. stay out of Israel’s war with Iran?
A: Yes
Q: Given Iran’s having stated on numerous occasions that it will settle for nothing less than the complete eradication of the State of Israel, and with Iran coming closer and closer to having a nuclear bomb – is this possible?
A: Ay, there’s the rub.
One is reminded of June 1981 when 8 Israeli F-16 fighter-bombers dropped 2,000 lb. bombs on Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha, near Baghdad. Iraq (Saddam Hussein) had insisted that the site was for peaceful purposes but that was not widely believed. Israel was condemned world-wide for the action, but I would wager that those who condemned Israel were secretly relieved that someone had the stones to do what so obviously HAD to be done.
(Source – ‘The Hidden Pope’ by Darcy O’Brien 1998 St. Martin’s Press PP286)
1) “For a war to be just it must be fought using only morally legitimate means.”
What is ‘morally legitimate’ about using nukes?
2) “A military action must not result in evils that are worse than the ones being redressed?”
What, pray tell, is worse than a nuclear bomb dropped in civilian areas?
3) So far in this war Israel has been targeting SPECIFIC sites and warning the residents beforehand to evacuate, meaning – get out of the area because we’re coming and you can’t stop us.
Iran has been targeting civilian sites.
“Trump has been warning the residents of Tehran to evacuate.”
1) It is the proper thing to do and
2) It tells EVERYONE – we CAN and we WILL.
What, does anyone know, is the origin of ‘just war theory’? Where did it originate and WHO is the author?
I do not believe that the use of nuclear weapons can ever be morally justified-even in retaliation. We all lose and evil prevails. I am not a pacifist, but this crosses a line that should never be crossed. I am reminded by Pope Francis and his statement to the effect that even having nuclear weapons is immoral. I may have disagreed with many of the statements coming from Rome-this was not one of them.
The barbaric mullahs and violent islam are still living in the seventh century. The will use whatever 21st century weapon they can get to attack the great Satan and eliminate the Jews. Bet on it. It’s in their DNA.
I can offer no solution. But there is no peaceful solution to this matter. Pray hard.
I agree Sean. I’m praying for the best outcome and the protection of all lives in the region.
No matter what the US does with Iran, I’m just grateful that Kamala Harris isn’t the president during this strange time.
Me too, Didn’t Think So. Praise God for that mercy. 🙏
Yes, the US should stay out of this. For all his bluster (which seems to be a dominant feature of his 2nd term), Trump is showing a fair amount of restraint. There’s a good chance the bombings from both sides will be over in 2 weeks, unless the Israelis prolong it precisely to pull the US in.
Meanwhile, Iran really should offer to eliminate their nuclear program in exchange for the Israelis eliminating theirs. There is zero chance that Netanyahu would agree to that, but it would highlight the hypocrisy of the two nuclear powers.
I’m beginning to think that peace is an eschatological concept. It’s a certainty that none of us will live to see Israel and Iran embrace each other in Christian charity. For the time being, it would be enough for them to stop killing each other.
“none of us will live to see Israel and Iran embrace each other in Christian charity.”
Pray for conversion of Islam; pray for the conversion of Judaism. Then there will be the possibility of Christian charity as we know it in the Christian church.
“Soli mortui finem belli viderunt.”
It would surprise no one to learn that Israel has operatives inside Iran who can provide the GPS coordinates for the whereabouts of the ayatollah and the locations of the site for the assembly/development of Iran’s nuclear weapons.
In order to maintain peace in this fallen world, the principle of balance of power is of some help (it is not the only principle, of course).
Suppose Iran obtains nuclear weapons (for what it is worth, I do not think that they are in fact pursuing these–at present), *wouldn’t that serve as a counterweight to Israel’s present possession of (some 200) nuclear weapons?*
Add to this the fact that–apparently–the only nations that the US and Israel refrain from attacking are countries with nuclear weapons.
Qaddafi abandoned any pursuit of nukes, and what did he receive as a reward? Death at the hands of US/Israel and the mutilation of his corpse. Seeing this, how can any sane nation hoping to preserve its sovereignty refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons?
Would not Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons deter the US and Israel from attacking it, and so help to preserve peace in that region?
Perhaps we should supply ALL nations with nuclear weapons and then we’d be assured of world peace.
Realistically, the only opportunity we have is not a guaranteed denuclearized Iran, rather that since we indeed have boots on the ground all over the Middle East – they are most likely guaranteed to be attacked – and we will be forced to protect them in another endless war. A war that China and Russia will support due to previous agreements.
If we instead allow Israel to continue to degrade Iran militarily and economically there’s possibility of a favorable change. We can act as a defender of Israel and keep China and Russia at bay with our superior naval air assets. A peaceful solution appears best. Our military intervention in the Israel Iran war is a strong contender for world war.