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”.
To be clear, if Jack the Ripper lamented the spread of dangerous weapons in London, and noted in particular that a specific emotional man on the other side of the city should not be allowed to own sharp instruments, Jack might be correct in his assertions. He would not, however, be the most fitting person to make this assertion, especially if he insisted on keeping a large collection of scalpels for himself. If he offered, as a public service, to “neutralize the threat” of the man across the city, this would emphatically be an unhelpful offer.
I thought I was the only one who remembered the money our country gave to Iran that supported their nuclear program. Thank you. I believe we owe something to Israel.
And remember who gave those billions…John Kerry and Barak Obama the former whom I believe should have or be put to trial for treason.
“The entire world has a vested interest in Iran not having a nuclear weapon.”
The entire world has a vested interest in NOBODY having a nuclear weapon, but that isn’t possible. The simple reality is Pandaro’s box has been opened.
What we do know is that at least since 1992, Netanyahu has been promising that Iran was soon to have a nuclear weapon. Of course that begs the question about what is a “nuclear weapon”. While we assume it will involve a mushroom cloud, that isn’t necessary to create a radiological hazard. In the meantime, North Korea has not only likely developed a fission weapon, it has developed and tested delivery platforms (missiles).
The difficulty with the containment is best exemplified by the tale of the late David Hahn “The Nuclear Boy Scout” who obtained information about radiological materials by simply calling the NRC and then extracting Americium 241 from smoke detectors. While he did not ultimately achieve his goal of producing an operating reactor, he did create a radiological hazard that required a declaration by the EPA (almost 30 years ago to the day 6/26/95) that his activities created a Superfund site. This was caused by a teenager without sophisticated equipment or university level physics/engineering education.
As for acquisition, we cannot assume that can only occur through a development program. Other nations may play Prometheus to Iran or any other bellicose nuclear parvenue.
You make a good argument for the ends being justified.
But do they justify the means? Is it at all necessary to examine the means? Does it matter, say, who creates a war, and whether he has the legal right to do it or not? MAY I CREATE A WAR? You presumably have some thoughts about whether I may spank a child (not my own), who really deserves it, in a supermarket?
DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAN AND MAY?
“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.
I don’t believe that for a moment Outis. Israel does care.
When Iran hits a hospital, it’s quite possibly because their guidance systems haven’t been updated in 40 years.
When Israel hits a hospital, it’s because they aimed at the hospital.
Maybe Netanyahu cries himself to sleep every night. I would not bet on it. (Remember, he was desperately trying to stay in office as PM so he could avoid prosecution for corruption. He does not represent Israel’s best side.)
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.
Let’s take a minute to remember Iraq’s lack of WMDs (at least in any shape to be used), combined with their refusal to say they didn’t have them, while we were given intelligence reports saying they did.
I wouldn’t put it past Iran to be pretending really hard to almost have them. Or to actually almost have them.
I was never given an intelligence report. Were you? I was given, to be clear, an argument that ignorance is as good a basis as knowledge for launching a war. George Weigel, who is frequently quoted in this publication as some sort of authority, argued exactly for that case against Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. In some people’s eyes, it seems writing the biography of a Pope makes one equally authoritative as a Pope (at least if advocating the “right” political positions).
I understand clearly that this post might not be approved, perhaps because the evaluator is inferior in rank in the CWR hierarchy to Weigel, or (equally likely) because contrary positions to his are not to be allowed. Such exclusions have happened in the past. Let the evaluator weigh the weight of George Weigel against the Catechism.
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
In this case, has the ACTUAL DAMAGE inflicted by Iran been “lasting, grave, and certain”? Not existing in your imagination or mine, in the imaginations of Trump or Bush or George Weigel or the editors of this magazine, but IN REALITY, AKA ACTUALLY?
What do “serious prospects of success” mean? How would we recognize them? How would they look different from retreating from Iraq just to leave ISIS, or scrambling escape-from-Hanoi-style to leave Afghanistan? And just how likely is that REALLY?
In this case, has the ACTUAL DAMAGE inflicted by Iran been “lasting, grave, and certain”
********
You might ask the hundreds murdered, tortured, & kidnapped on October 7th. All funded by Iran
Iran’s a terrorist regime. Israel’s damage might be our damage one day. At least we’ve reduced the odds of that damage being nuclear.
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.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing.
It’s a moot issue now. We carried out the mission on three sites including Fordow. Prayers it will turn out in ours and the world’s favor.
There is some constant in the “forever wars”, we never seem to improve the situation and often worsen it-usually to the detriment of a hopelessly outnumbered Christian population.
The hubris of the people that plan and execute things is never chastened by their failure-so at this point, I just assume they are amoral.
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.
Yes, self defense is legitimate. That said, is a retaliation strike minimum or maximum?
The Iranian Mullahs appear to be crazy. If they get a nuke and use it on Israel, they must know retaliation will be “a rain of ruin from the sky, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.” (Harry Truman). Would they actually do it?
This is not a time for bluff and bluster. Rather, we need determination and quiet diplomacy.
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.
Yes, it is. The only goal of islam (I refuse to capitalize it) is world domination via the sword. Death and destruction follows it wherever it goes. It must be either contained or eradicated.
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?
Thank you Thomas James. You read my mind 🙂
What?
Do you see matters of foreign policy as something to be opined upon by some limited group or do you see the author as unqualified or perhaps lacking objectivity.
We know the practice is limited to a small, monocultural group. How’s that working out?
More Fesers, less Nulands.
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.
You speak as someone with a moral compass. The problem is our enemies are often of the ilk that do not. Trying to play chess with a cheater has a predictable outcome. Count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin if you like. It will do nothing to eliminate an enemy that thinks its ok to rape women and burn babies alive as happened on October 7th to the Israelis. The world is better when such creatures are gone.
We read: “What, does anyone know, is the origin of ‘just war theory’? Where did it originate and WHO is the author?”
The Greeks and the Romans are early thinkers, and later and especially St. Augustine with his probably five conditions. Two of which are addressed by Dr. Feser (the morality of the means employed, and the proportionality of outcomes including collateral damage). The other three are exhaustion of other options, declaration by a public authority responsible for the common good, and the defense against an aggressor (the justice of the cause).
Given today’s hair-trigger world, complicating factors include:
…the existence of broad networks of all sorts as well as geographically-defined political states, the distinction between an overreaching preventive war and a more defensible “first strike,” ubiquitous communications and the power of a few ill-chosen words (like “unconditional surrender”), the added layer of randomness due to fundamental differences among conflicted cultures (a culture of faith-and-reason versus existential threats and Islamic jihadism as “defensive”), and even the blurring between battlefield strategy and tactics.
In his bible ON WAR, Carl von Clausewitz still distinguished strategy and tactics–not yet aware how technology and the tactical machine gun would become the strategy of World War I, nor how tactical aircraft would replace battleship strategy in World War II. Von Clausewitz who is misunderstood for saying “war is politics by other means” when, from his actual writings, it’s clear that he meant warfare is not an isolated event but fits within and is part of (does not replace) a broader context of politics, economics and culture. Nor did he foresee how nuclear enrichment, itself, might itself be either an implicit declaration of war or not. Also new, with the fluid mix of tactical and total nuclear weapons, is nuclear blackmail which can enslave without ever being actually used. The calculus of consequences for action—and for inaction.
From the back bleachers, yours truly is not sure that theologians or philosophers can always pull instructive citations off the back shelf. All things considered, what is a just “war” and what is an unjust “peace”?
Mr. Reimers, Mr. Beaulieu;
Thanks to both of you for your replies.
My point is this – with the existence of nuclear weapons, the very theory of ‘just war’ becomes irrelevant.
We read: “My point is this – with the existence of nuclear weapons, the very theory of ‘just war’ becomes irrelevant.”
I respectfully reply that Just War Theory (JWT) becomes more relevant in the nuclear age because it has been argued that even possessing nuclear arms creates an unjust condition. The “logic” of deterrence shows this to be the case. Nuclear bombs are not very selective about who they kill and what is destroyed. If a country possesses weapons of mass destruction and intends to use them then they intend to kill non-combatants; do more harm than good; etc., all of which are immoral. If the country does not intend to use them then the weapons are a lie and a waste of resources. JWT is strict, non-pacifistic, rooted in Christianity, and is not conditioned on the enemy following the same rules. Our integrity does not depend on what our enemy does. It does not matter what the other side does. It matters what we do.
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. 🙏
I think Trump is a disaster. A bully who bluffs and blusters and operates on whims. Canada as the 51st state? This is nonsense. I thought W Bush was bad, but Trump is worse. W Bush is like a bad case of Gonoreha. Trump is stage 4 cancer.
Be assured William that folks are working hard to find a cure for TDS. Hang in there and I will pray that when it first appears you will have the first option to take it thanks to Trump’s passage of the “Right to Try” bill that allows experimental options for those otherwise terminally ill.
TDS? Trump Deification Syndrome?
Canada as the 51st state is pretty silly but Alberta as the 51st state actually has some Canadian supporters.
Canada has a provision and process for provinces to separate so who knows?
Doesn’t seem likely but stranger things have happened.
Mr. Reimers, Mr. Beaulieu;
Thanks to both of you for your replies.
My point is this – with the existence of nuclear weapons, the very theory of ‘just war’ becomes irrelevant.
Echoing the Second Vatican Council, in 1982 Pope John Paul II delivered this prudential judgment to Second Special Session of the United Nations dedicated to disarmament : “In current conditions ‘deterrence’ based on balance, certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable” (Negotiation: The Only Realistic Solution to the Continuing Threat of War [Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1982] p. 10).
In 1980 there were seven nuclear powers, now there are nine. Pakistan and North Korea joined the “club” by 1990. A few others have come and then gone, especially Ukraine and not yet including Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country
Me three
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.
Certainly. And pray for the conversion of Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, and Communists. My understanding is that many Saints have prophesied that, before the time of the Antichrist, they will all be converted. However, they resisted the ministry of the likes of St. Francis and St. Francis Xavier. My last act in Tokyo, almost 30 years ago, was to buy 1000 New Testaments to be distributed in the mailboxes of the Todai International Lodge and similar dorms. I remember being somewhat amused at the growing frustration of a Muslim member of the Lodge when a Chinese man (who was interested in the Christianity) dismissed the Virgin Birth as impossible; I thought it was because the idea of ANYTHING being impossible to God offended the Muslim man, but it turns out that Muslims also believe in the Virgin Birth. At the same time, I knew I was no Francis Xavier (whom I came to admire while reading a history of Japan even though I was a Baptist at the time), and I knew that even he could not create a convert; that is the job of the Holy Spirit. I knew it would happen in His own good time, but not as quickly as I would wish.
And so it is with Judaism and Islam, with the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and with all heretics and infidels.
“Soli mortui finem belli viderunt.”
Thanks (I mean it!) for introducing me to that sad truism.
I suppose Trump wanted Canada, Greenland, and Panama to see that he means business. So much the worse for him.
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.
No kidding. Ditto with the USA; SOMEBODY dropped the USB stick that destroyed the Iranian centrifuges. But when any of these are apprehended, they are referred to as “innocent hostages”. An innocent person would have to be “innocent” in the euphemistic sense to go into a place like that.
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.
The best solution is the one proposed by the Popes: the abolition of nuclear weapons combined with a system of mutual inspection (including surprise inspections) of each of the countries’ facilities (including, yes, those of Israel and the US).
We were making strides in this direction through Reagan’s START treaties, the theater nuclear weapons treaties with Russia and China, and even through the more limited treaty with Iran.
Trump foolishly pulled out of all of these treaties.
In re: the present issue, Trump, hypocritically, criticized Iran for going beyond the strictures of a treaty which he himself pulled out of (and which was therefore no longer binding on Iran).
It’s the old evil US game: rules for thee, but not for me.
Two Chris Albrecht:
“Add to this the fact that–apparently–the only nations that the US and Israel refrain from attacking are countries with nuclear weapons.
The U.S. and Israel have restrained from attacking the vast majority of the nations in this world.
‘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?’
Iran has made clear its contempt for and desire to annihilate both Israel and the U.S. They have been directly or through their proxies been badgering Israelis with rocket for years. They have not had the military capabilities to attack the U.S. until now. Note: that only in recent weeks have they been hitting Israel with ICBMs and hitting civilian targets. Intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the eastern coast of the USA. As much as Iran hates Israel it is the USA that is the BIG FISH in the sea of hate. With a nuclear weapon combined with the ability to direct it to NYC or any populated place along our eastern border would be their dream.
OK, let’s phrase it negatively, then.
US and Israel have never attacked a nuclear power. So, if one is a nation trying to avoid being attacked by them, it may be advisable to acquire nukes.
Re: Iran’s nuclear ambitions and capability to hit the US. They still do not–so far as we know–have weapons grade uranium, the supporting mechanisms necessary to actualize/activate a bomb, or the delivery system to hit the USA. They do *not* have an ICBM. Yes, they can hit Israel, but that is a problem for Israel–not necessarily one for the USA.
Correction: Iran has been hitting Israel in recent weeks with ICBMs!! Their new toy in the box.
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.
When your enemies say they want you dead, believe them. Then act upon that information. “Death to Israel, death to America” has been a chant in Iran for far too many years. What happened to Israeli young people and civilians on October 7th was an unprovoked atrocity carried out by barbarians lacking in any level of empathy or humanity. What happens to them, and those who have allowed them to remain in power, concerns me not one bit.
American wars have gone weakly in recent years due to far too much hand wringing by American leaders about the enemy. “Rules ” of engagement, pre-announcing attacks which allow enemies to flee a target area, excessive concern about civilian casualties is among the reasons. Our enemies are not as fussy.
War is an awful, brutal, terrible thing. That makes it a thing to be avoided and its good for certain nations to be aware of the penalty of poking a bear too many times. They, and their people, should pay a huge price for that. It will almost certainly make them think twice about further attacks. A limp wristed response, on the other hand, or NO consequence, or too much concern over casualties, will gain us nothing but the possibility of further attacks. Most of our enemies these days agree with the cultural perspective that niceness and concern is equal to being weak. Period. I notice its been 80 years or so since we have been attacked by either Japan or Germany. Gee, I wonder why?
One of the controversial figures in American History is General William Tecumsah Sherman. He took seriously his mandate to end the Civil War, and end it he did—by burning down everything he could lay his hands on during his march through the south. Brutal? Yes indeed. Effective in ending the war? Absolutely. Continuing to give Iran “chances” does nothing to end the nuclear threat and does a lot to make us seem weak and ineffective. A very dangerous tactic. Meanwhile Iran continues it grotesque way bombing civilian targets and hospitals in Israel. Their “motive”?? Sheer ignorance and hate. Anyone who believes that Iran will not attack the US after they finish off Israel if they can, and then re-arm, is a greater fool than anyone can imagine. War is not a game. When you fight, you fight with everything you have.
LJ, what you write gets a ringing endorsement from me. In fact, I’d go so far as to state most emphatically that YOU should have been the one to write this article, not Dr. Feser. Weak and indecisive leaders are far worse for peace than anything imaginable. No one likes war but conflict-avoiders like low-testosterone men have been plagueing our nation for quite some time and their ilk only incentivizes geopolitical bullies.
Thank you, Deacon. One of my favorite American figures, in addition to General Sherman, is Teddy Roosevelt, who said, “Speak softly but carry a big stick”. For far too long we have unaccountably been fearful of using the big stick when it was badly needed. REALLY use it. The result has been ongoing American casualties and a perception of American weakness which has not served the nation well. Its time for the world to remember that although America prays for peace, this is not Switzerland.
Deacon. Are we now engaged in a commentary war of testosterone levels? It’s equivalent to Woody Allen saying My brain! My second favorite organ.
Father, lacking in testosterone is a very vulnerable condition in a world where there are belligerents such as N. Korea, China, Iran, and their guns for hire.
Well, you might guess that General Sherman is not on my list of heroes but yes, there are times when actions need to be taken to prevent something worse from happening.
The US has often got that wrong in the past, especially with Iran but I believe this time we may have got it right.
Mrs Cracker, a person doesnt need to like a politician (or military man) to understand he made an appropriate or necessary choice to protect his country. Unfortunately, you would never know that from the scandalous screeds and lies that come from politicians on the opposite political persuasion. The truth? Not every action makes a decisive leader “Hitler”. Not every decision means we are “losing our democracy”. The hysteria is so patently untrue and constant it would be almost funny if it didnt do the country so much damage. We will hear this phony outrage from some quarters as a reaction to our bombing of Iran. As Americans we have plenty of enemies outside our borders. We dont need to manufacture any among our own people.
Israel was the first country in the Middle East to acquire nuclear weapons. The Israelis acquired these weapons by stealing highly enriched uranium from the United States and lying about the purpose of their nuclear reactor in Dimona to the investigators that JFK sent. Considering this, Israel has no moral authority to condemn Iran for possessing the ability to make nuclear weapons while actually having no such weapons. A non-nuclear armed Iran is no threat to a nuclear armed Israel. On the contrary, an aggressive, expansionistic Israel supported unquestioningly by the United States is a serious threat to Iran. For more information on Israel’s duplicitous acquisition of nuclear weapons, see the link below which takes you to an article followed by a series of declassified U.S. intelligence documents relating to the case.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2016-11-02/numec-affair-did-highly-enriched-uranium-us-aid-israels-nuclear-weapons-program
That was very funny. Surely you know that Iran is 75 TIMES the size of Israel. Exactly where do you expect Israel to “expand”?? While indeed obtaining nuclear power, Israel has not threatened anyone with its use, which it could easily have done, and that years ago when Iran had no such weapons. In fact its highly likely Israel would never have attacked Iran if it had not been for the October 7th atrocities and constant threats.
The Israeli government and its neocon supporters in the U.S. have long desired Israel’s neighbors to be crushed in Israel’s quest for regional hegemony in the Middle East. Just read the document “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” drafted for the then newly-elected Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmzer, and other Jewish neoconservatives who would later serve in the Office of Special Plans that brought the United States to war in Iraq. https://web.archive.org/web/20140125123844/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
In this document, the authors suggest that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and destabilizing Syria by supporting rebel forces would greatly benefit Israel. Together, the U.S. and Israel have successfully achieved these goals. As for Iran, this article in the Jerusalem Post, written six months before October 7, mentions Israeli preparations for war with that country as well, so Israel would likely have gone to war with Iran regardless of October 7.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-739186
As for Israeli expansionism, the Jerusalem Post published an article in September of last year claiming that parts of “Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq” are part of Eretz Yisrael and that some Jewish scholars believe that the Jewish people should conquer them again. Interestingly, the Jerusalem Post deleted this article, but it is archived here.
https://archive.ph/kFmFP#selection-709.0-712.0
These articles all demonstrate Israel’s propensity for bullying its neighbors and seeking regional dominance over them, so Israel is not the peace-loving victim its defenders often claim it to be.
For a tiny nation that gave away a strategically important site like Gaza you have to wonder.
Jewish world manipulation myths abound. It was the case in medieval times & it’s the case today. Plus ca change.
Someone in all sincerity shared with me a poem they found through social media. It was supposedly a prayer for peace penned by Pope Leo asking to vanquish the forces that “manipulate the whole world.” Or words to that effect. One guess who those forces are.
Conspiracy followers can be good devout Catholic people in every other respect but we know the dark places stuff like this can lead you.
Ed Feser is usually right on many things, but here he’s just plain wrong.
Iran is an Islamic Republic in a state of religious war with every power that isn’t Shi’a Islam, it is a threat to international peace within the meaning of the Charter of the United Nations, so that the UN Security Council could licitly intervene under Chapter VII.
For that matter the Islamic Republic of Iran – like all Islamic polities – is at war with God Himself, ruthlessly persecuting Christians and thereby endangering the salvation of souls. How the destruction of this regime, or at least of its nuclear weapons programme, could possibly give rise to disorders as bad as, let alone worse than, this is a question beyond the capacity of a genius to answer.
Well, US bombers destroyed 3 nuclear facilities in Iran late yesterday, officially attacking the Islamic hell-hole.
Outis;
Ref. your statement of 6/21 7:26 p.m. – “When Israel hits a hospital it’s because they aimed at the hospital.”
Could you name ONE occasion on which this has occurred?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-airstrike-hits-field-hospital-entrance-in-gaza-killing-medic-and-wounding-9
https://www.yahoo.com/news/israeli-airstrike-reportedly-hits-un-102626493.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/least-500-victims-israeli-air-strike-hospital-gaza-health-ministry-2023-10-17/
There is a LOT of complexity in Israeli-Palestinian relations that goes back several decades. Based on my travel to Israel, conversations with a friend from Lebanon whose family was forced off their ancestral land, and perusal of various media outlets, the conversation is nuanced and harrowing from both Israeli and Palestinian action. None of us really know all of what’s happening in the Middle East and we are all basing our assessment on media outlets that have an ideological bent of some type (for better or worse).
I’d also urge prudence in assuming that adherents of Islam act as a homogeneous block. It’s one of the largest religions in the world – such a broad-brush treatment of all Muslims is as inadequate as it would be to assume that all Protestants have a consistent theology.
Those who have friends or family living in Israel do know what’s going on. At least we on what’s going on with them. I trust Israeli first hand accounts over the media.
Goodness I need better reading glasses in the morning or a bigger screen.
At least we *know* what’s going on with them.
From what I’ve heard & read from folks in Israel they’re very grateful for the preemptive actions taken against Iran, even though that may put them at some danger from Iranian missiles. At least those aren’t going to be nuclear missiles now. Or hopefully not.
To MrsCracker: Yesterday you posted: “Someone in all sincerity shared with me a poem they found through social media. It was supposedly a prayer for peace penned by Pope Leo asking to vanquish the forces that “manipulate the whole world.” Or words to that effect. One guess who those forces are.
Conspiracy followers can be good devout Catholic people in every other respect but we know the dark places stuff like this can lead you.”
I would love to read that poem. Could you post where you found it? Or if it very short could you post it here? Please? Thank you for all your good input here.
James Kleinek;
Re: your 6/23 8:05 am.
These are, sadly true. But – they happen because Hamas militants hide out in and operate from – civilian areas, INCLUDING hospitals. This is a common practice of theirs and has been so for years.
BREAKING NEWS: After only 3 dqys of Trump’s moratorium of two weeks for Iran to comply with his demand for peace, he bombs Iran’s nuclear sites with 30K bunker buster bombs. It appears that he made a unanimous decision to avoid Congress. The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 specifically lists as a power of Congress the power “to declare War,” which unquestionably gives the legislature the power to initiate hostilities.
Excerpts: 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.
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.
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.”
If all of these comments by Dr. Feser are true, Trump is too conflated and seriously demented to carry the nuclear codes.
God help us. A wider war may be imminent. Arab nations seem to diminish Iran’s threat, “death to Israel and America.”
To MorganD who said “BREAKING NEWS: After only 3 dqys of Trump’s moratorium of two weeks for Iran to comply with his demand for peace, he bombs Iran’s nuclear sites with 30K bunker buster bombs. It appears that he made a unanimous decision to avoid Congress. ”
First: President Trump NEVER made a moratorium of two weeks for Iran to comply to peace. He originally gave Iran 60 (SIXTY) days to agree to a peaceful resolution. Iran ignored it. When a news reporter interviewing Trump about the situation between Israel and Iran and asked Trump when he would make a decision about how what the U.S. would do next Trump thought for a few seconds and answered “within two weeks”. I heard that as did many others yet I keep hearing references to this so called two week moratorium to give Iran a chance. Is it our degraded educational system that so many people these days don’t read what is written nor hear what is spoken ? When things are tense and serious that’s when we need to be more careful with the truth. I am sick and tired of reading these fantasies despised and facts reported by the media and multiple a thousand fold on social media. Just one example of the real dangers to our democracy born and raised right here in the USA.
BTW, The Constitution requires Congress to declare war. That’s why JFK and LBJ, Bush #1 and Clinton and Bush# 2 and Obama never declared war. They just sent troops and supplies to Vietnam, Iraq, did a quick invasion of a foreign country in the dark and took out bin Laden along with a few of his assistants, Invaded Cuba at Bay of Pigs, help me I’m missing some… But then it was o.k. because they were not Donald Trump. I thank God for Donald J Trump and will continue to support him and his administration despite the despicable politics we have to endure from the nitwits on both sides.
Mary McCurry: Let’s also remember Clinton’s involvement in the Balkans. I don’t remember Congress declaring war on Serbia. And wasn’t Hilary Clinton to blame for the deaths of our diplomats in Benghazi? And when exactly was war declared on Afghanistan? And, in addition, what was the ultimate goal of putting our military troops on the ground in Afghanistan? Did we accomplish our goal? And how many American lives were lost in Afghanistan and for what ultimate purpose. Those here with TDS need to go and have their heads examined and to look into buying some common sense for themselves.
Mary, you say, “That’s why JFK and LBJ, Bush #1 and Clinton and Bush# 2 and Obama never declared war.” Use of the word “NEVER? Could I be wrong?
History proves that former presidents DID avoid Congress and declared war. However, your references to the past should prove that we have not learned from it and should not shield Trump when he is wrong.
Nobody should want to see a president fail. I want to give President Trump credit for any positive and legal executive actions taken. However, I must show my objections to his many serious failures that rise to the level of a violation of our constitution or a threat to the nation. His unilateral and “illegal” decision not to inform Congress of the intent to bomb Iran is critical and may cause a wider war in the Middle East. nnnnnn not to mention the nnnnnn of our allies.
TODAY, AN EMERGENCY REPORT THAT IRAN HAS ATTACKED OUR MILITARY BASE IN QATAR. SO FAR, THANKFULLY, THERE WERE NO US DEATHS.
I continue to respect the office of the presidency, but challenge the occupant when he is wrong.
God bless our brave protectors.
All this effusive praise of Trump. Iran will retaliate in their own time. We are not finished with them.
The Iranian regime has a few more cards to play in its deck but they’re not in very good shape right now. We can pray that things improve for the Iranian people. They deserve much better than what they’ve suffered over the past 45 plus years. If this regime falls & nothing worse takes its place it will benefit everyone. The USA included.
About Tulsi Gabbard and the lack of evidence, at least some weight must be given to this possible information vacuum. Consider how silence led to a murder conviction in the Sherlock Holmes mystery where the guilty party was identified by the fact that the victim’s dog was curiously silent–did not bark. The guilty party was known to the victim and his dog, and identified by the silence.
What does it mean when the International Atomic Energy Commission reports lack of access to Iranian nuclear sites? https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran-breach-non-proliferation-duties-diplomats-say-2025-06-12/ “The Board of Governors… finds that Iran’s many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran … constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the Agency,” the text said.
What kind of technical “evidence” is credible, given today’s overlaid weaponization of silence and disinformation?
morganD, it would be the height of foolishness to telegraph the time of any action on our part. Were we to give Iran 2 weeks before making a decision, we would be effectively telling Iran the time of an attack. Trump was not bound by his “two weeks to make a decision” comment. Element of surprise preserved.
It’s about knowing how to hold your hand of cards. Kenny Rogers said it best.
🙂
Joseph. Your concern for exposing our military plans is of utmost concern. Remember the following?…
Unqualified DOD “Secretary” Pete Hegseth’s use of the open Signal portal to discuss sensitive military attack data. The line bypassed Pentagon cybersecurity. He did it twice without consequence!. Trump still loves him.
Unqualified Secretary of the Department of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was openly challenged on Iran’s nuclear progress. ‘SHE’S WRONG’: TRUMP SAYS TULSI GABBARD INCORRECT ABOUT IRAN NOT HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPON CAPABILITIES.
For all of our allies to see: Just today, Trump insisted that Iran and Israel agreed to a cease-fire. “The ceasefire is now in effect. Please do not violate it!” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Monday. Then the ceasefire was broken by Iran and Israel. In one of his less than Presidential explosive tirades when he is proven wrong, he said “They don’t know what the F**k they are doing.” Are our allies steering clear? Are our children watching?
To MorganD
Please read more carefully. On the first announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran it was stated that both parties agreed the ceasefire would take place in 6 and 12 hours to allow the completion of operations in progress and time to make the necessary communications to their respective governments. Trump presumed that during that preliminary time before the ceasefire would take effect both sides would refrain from striking one another. Unfortunately that didn’t happen but when Trump heard about he blew off his own lid, mainly at Israel and yes, used profanity in expressing his anger and frustration with both sides. It worked and so far there has been no fire since the official start of the ceasefire.
“Please read more carefully.”
I’ll save you time and effort: morganD cannot conceive of a world in which Donald Trump should be allowed to even take a single breath of air, as Trump only breathes air to steal it from others, to have breath to lie about everything, and to give him the energy to ruin the world.
MorganD could not have said it better.
I respect Feser’s philosophical works, but . . . (1) Trump has not targeted civilians or civilian infrastructure. (2) I know of no prohibition in just war theory about demanding unconditional surrender. (3) So far, Trump’s actions have been limited to specific nuclear sites and targets that might be defending them. And (4) there is no reason to expect an invasion. Time will tell.
And meanwhile, what is happening in Ukraine? What has happened to those children, captured and sent off to Russia?
For me, the only pertinent question regarding Iran is this: “Is it in the interest of the United States that Iran NOT possess nuclear weapons?” It requires but a Yes or No.
It’s amazing how many Catholics have no doubts about going to war with Iran.
Leon, in answer to my own question, I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that it’s NOT in the interest of the USA (and the civilized world) that IRAN possess nuclear weapons.
I have no doubts either.
Regime change in Iran, what is the endgame? Another sectional caliphate under the sway and determination of Zionism and the Deep State?
Zionism?
Ideally a regime change would be good for all concerned. Our track record with regime changes in the past though has not been the best. So we’ll see how this all plays out. One dreadful dictator down can create a vacuum for worse things to come.
Yes, the dictatorship tyranny of Zionists, above all, where all things stay the same as they are already for the this “dome” and for the that “dome”.
Could be these “domes” are stylizations of “Abraham’s house” for those who “belong”. All things outside are made to conform to super-imprinted characterizations.
There are no dictators or tyrants in Israel. It’s a democracy with people of all political views.
Netanyahu is a fugitive from justice to be tried for genocide and war crime.
Elias Galy says: “Netanyahu is a fugitive from justice to be tried for genocide and war crime.” Maybe only as much as your country thinks
I think you would like to have had a reply. Also Netanyahu.
I didn’t get that line from my country, I got that line from my appreciation of morality and of the parts of US history that speak of true greatness.
The US was instrumental in foundationally erecting the UN system and that very design has brought down upon Israel some considerable judgment.
Many commenters here are trying to dissolve Feser’s article’s headline and his thesis; and are not succeeding. You are somewhat of a conundrum in it.
Eg., you say, “Perhaps we should supply ALL nations with nuclear weapons and then we’d be assured of world peace.” You don’t see what that references.
Israel does not have any preeminent right among nations to defend itself preemptively or to have nuclear weapons or to have any leading role.
Nor does the US have any duty to fortify or even assist either Israel in pursuit of the contrary or to even be involved. Just as with Ukraine.
The US itself is becoming more and more wary of claiming rights in that.
As it should.
Moreover, the problem of these equalities in the international forum is not addressed by arguing deformities like “give all nations nuclear”.
Any more than by having Israel both avoid non-proliferation and have bespoke immunity, plus makeshift, automatic and unconditional immunity, plus & etc.
It’s true Israel is in a bad place, in view of the fact. That’s from Israel’s own redux and fault and from vicious posing upon immunities.
I don’t think our role in establishing the UN will go down in history as a great accomplishment.
Seriously, condemnation from the UN is almost an honor sometimes. It’s become that ridiculous. This is the same outfit that promotes ” reproductive autonomy ” as a solution for our crashing birthrates.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, recently admitted the Iranians were engaged in an effort to produce nuclear weapons. Newsweek reported that he posted this statement in response to the strike on Iran’s nuke facilities:
“The enrichment of nuclear material—and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons—will continue.”
Trump was right to strike. Whatever bad things happen now will be far less bad than if Iran possessed nukes.
End of discussion.
My reading of Medvedev from different news report sources, is that he was pointing out that a wrong move will now tend to produce the worst result. His statement in context, that Russia is a signatory to non-proliferation of nuclear but Israel is not.
Maybe Trump, Netanyahu and Salman bin Saud met in one of the Abrahamic Domes we don’t know about yet and already decided who would eventually rule in Iran with a caliphate fist to fill the void they propose to make by “bombing out Tehran and assassinating Khamenei”.
When interests are confined in a narrow range what results is “exceptionalism”. Interests are what can attain to the exclusive and the “excepted” and the narrow range is the fewest necessary causes needed for buoying up more ascendancy. Classic Chicago School.
It tells me the sort of intellectualism that gets Mr. Trump but also drives Deep State.
I am not American. Yet, what is THAT narrowness?
Best commentary I’ve read or heard on the current situation between U.S. and Iran authored by Robert Royal and posted on The Catholic Thing 06/23/2025 Below is a link:
‘Wars and Rumors of Wars’ from The Catholic Thing.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2025/06/23/wars-and-rumors-of-wars-2/
This aged very badly and very quickly. The whole article shows why conclusions shouldn’t be jumped to and careful discernment (especially as Cathollics) should be considered. The article does not consider that big talk and slight of hand are used in war strategy – instead, it assumed the worse and became lecturing. Military targets were hit with pinpoint accuracy with possibly very few civilian casualties, while Iran fired into neighborhoods. The autocrats of Iran were even misled to a central location for a fake meeting, which was then targeted. It ended with three purely military sites being hit. Almost pinpoint precision was used. You need to own up to this article and rewrite it as to how it carefully followed just-war theory – otherwise, you just have egg on your face.
The US is not ready for the war this would produce and backed out early.
The US does not have a meaningful future hanging on to Netanyahu’s coattails.
In addition to genocide and war crime, Netanyahu is imprecated in general US law like wire fraud; where any nation can bring it up, it doesn’t have to be Muslim.
The big talker was always Netanyahu, the eyebrows and swagger and make-up give it away and he is not ageing well like an already overcooked egg in a burnt up frying pan on fire.
Consider what those Americans are, who are his.
We’ve not officially entered into a war at the moment. And please God we won’t. A preemptive strike on an Iranian nuclear facility was something appreciated by more nations than Israel. And some Iranians thought it the right thing to do also. Fewer & fewer Iranians support the regime.
I thought a dose of humor was needed:
“Here’s how different media outlets are covering the historic news:
New York Times — Quiet Middle Eastern Community Devastated By Unprovoked Trump Attack
Fox News — Trump Neutralizes Terrifying Iran Nuclear Threat With Mere Seconds To Spare
New York Post — AYATOLL-YA SO!Iran Out Of Luck As Trump Drops Bodacious Bunker Buster
CNN — Trump Cruelly Deprives Poor Iranian Children Of Nuclear Weapon They’ve Always Dreamed Of
MSNBC — Iran Is Now The George Floyd Of The Middle East
BBC News — REMINDER: Next Call To Prayer Is In One Hour. Allahu Akbar.
One America News — Yay Trump For Avoiding War – Oh Wait, He Bombed Iran? Really? I Mean, Yay Trump For Bombing Iran
Vice — I Took Fentanyl And Slept With A Penguin
Vogue — 5 Kinky Tricks You Can Try In The Bedroom To Show Your Support For Iran
Not The Bee — Trump Just Bombed The Snot Out Of Iran And The Responses Are STRAIGHT 🔥🔥🔥🤣
The Babylon Bee — Iranian Nuclear Facility Escapes Bombing By Identifying As Mar A Lago (That’s Right We Just Have The One Joke)
Al-Jazeera — TRUMP JUST BOMBED OUR HEADQUARTERS!!!”
The Babylon Bee
Any guesses as to how long it’s going to take for Feser to issue a retraction and apology for his premature and self-righteous rush to judgment and his TDS?
To MrsCracker:
At approx 7:32pm I replied to your post of June 24, 2025 and requested asked a of you. You likely missed it. If you’re rather not answer here this is my address: xmccurry@mac.com
God Bless
Thank you Miss Mary. I’ll go look for your earlier comment.
God bless you too
🙏
Hello again, Miss Mary. I sent a text message to the person who shared the supposed poem/prayer for world peace & asked where they found it. If I get a reply I will share it.
Meanwhile, I’ve seen info. online that there were AI created hoax sermons & videos by Pope Leo on YouTube that have since been taken down. Perhaps that was the source.
The Israelis are both cunning and cruel. They attacked Iran, not the other way around. An Iranian writing online claims that Iran/Persia has not attacked another nation since the Ottoman Empire.
They have attacked most if not all of the countries surrounding Israel, and have assassinated leadership in those countries.
The Israelis have assassinated diplomats and scientists.
And a Harvard-linked study claims that Israel has “disappeared” some 377,000 Palestinians since October 8.
https://thecradle.co/articles/harvard-linked-study-finds-israel-disappeared-nearly-400000-palestinians-in-gaza-half-of-them-children-report
I personally think that we Christians having Christian morality shouldn’t regard modern or ancient violent morality theories as what we should fully abide by, unless we get them cleaned to be peaceful morality theories. It’s not peaceful morality that should comply with the era, instead it is the era that should comply with peaceful morality.