Last week I argued that the U.S. should stay out of Israel’s war with Iran. America has now entered the war by bombing three facilities associated with Iran’s nuclear program. Is this action morally justifiable in light of traditional just war doctrine?
War aims?
Let us note, first, that much depends on exactly what the U.S. intends to accomplish. A week ago, before the attack, President Trump warned that Tehran should be evacuated, called for Iran’s unconditional surrender, and stated that the U.S. would not kill Iran’s Supreme Leader “for now”—thereby insinuating that it may yet do so at some future time. Meanwhile, many prominent voices in the president’s party have been calling for regime change in Iran, and Trump himself this week has joined this chorus. If we take all of this at face value, it gives the impression that the U.S. intends or is at least open to an ambitious and open-ended military commitment comparable to the American intervention in Iraq under President Bush.
As I argued in my previous essay, if this is what is intended, U.S. action would not be morally justifiable by traditional just war criteria. I focused on two points in particular. First, the danger such intervention would pose to civilian lives and infrastructure would violate the just war condition that a war must be fought using only morally acceptable means. Second, given the chaos regime change would likely entail, and the quagmire into which the U.S. would be drawn, such an ambitious intervention would violate the just war condition that a military action must not result in evils that are worse than the one being redressed.
However, it is likely that we should not take the president’s words at face value. He has a long-established tendency to engage in “trash talk” and to make off-the-cuff remarks that reflect merely what has popped into his head at the moment rather than any well-thought-out or settled policy decision. Furthermore, even when he does have in mind some settled general policy goal, he appears prone to “making it up as he goes” where the details are concerned (as evidenced, for example, by his erratic moves during the tariff controversy earlier this year). My best guess is that he does not want an Iraq-style intervention but also does not have a clear idea of exactly how far he is willing to go if Iran continues to resist his will.
As I said in my previous essay, this is itself a serious problem. An erratic and woolly-minded leader who does not intend a wider war is liable nevertheless to be drawn into one by events, and can also cause other harm, short of that, through reckless statements.
But so far, at least, the U.S. has in fact only bombed the facilities in question. Suppose, for the sake of argument,t that this limited “one and done” intervention is all that is intended. Would this much be justifiable under just war doctrine?
Preemptive versus preventive war
This brings us to an issue which I only touched on in my earlier essay but which is obviously no less important (indeed, even more important) than the two criteria I focused on: the justice of the cause for which the war is being fought, which is the first criterion of just war doctrine. The reason I did not say more about it is that the issue is more complex than meets the eye. I think Israel can make a strong case that its attack on Iran’s nuclear program meets the just cause condition for a just war. But it is harder for the U.S. to meet that condition, even in a “one and done” scenario.
To understand why, we need to say something about a controversy that arose during the Iraq War and is highly relevant to the current situation, but hasn’t received the attention it ought to. I refer to the debate over the morality of preventive war, which ethicists often distinguish from preemptive war.
In both preemptive war and preventive war, a country takes military action against another country that has not attacked it. And in both cases, the country initiating hostilities nevertheless claims to be acting in self-defense. This might seem like sophistry and a manifest violation of the just cause criterion of just war doctrine. How can a country that begins a war claim self-defense?
But there is a crucial difference between the two cases. In a preemptive war, country B is preparing to attack country A but has not in fact yet done so. Country A simply preempts this coming attack by striking first, and can claim self-defense insofar as country B was indeed going to attack it. By contrast, in a preventive war, country B was not preparing to attack country A. But country A attacks country B anyway, claiming that country B likely would pose a threat to A at some point in the future.
Now, it is generally acknowledged among ethicists that preemptive war can sometimes be morally justifiable. But preventive war is much more problematic and controversial. There are two main traditions of thinking on this subject (a useful overview of which can be found in chapter 9 of Gregory Reichberg’s book Thomas Aquinas on War and Peace). On the one hand, there is the natural law tradition of thinking about just war criteria, associated with Scholastic Catholic writers like Thomas Aquinas and Francisco de Vitoria, Protestants like Hugo Grotius, and more recent Thomists like the nineteenth-century Catholic theologian Luigi Taparelli. According to this tradition, preventive war is flatly morally illegitimate. It violates the principle that a person or country cannot be harmed merely for some wrong it might do, but only for some wrong that it has in fact done.
The other main approach is the “realist” tradition associated with Protestant thinkers like Alberico Gentili, Francis Bacon, and (with qualifications, since he also drew on the natural law tradition) Emer de Vattel. As Reichberg notes, whereas the natural law approach takes the international order to be governed by the moral law just as relations between individuals are, the tendency of the realist tradition is to look at the international arena in something more like Hobbesian terms. And the realist tradition is thus more favorable to preventive war as a tool nations might deploy as they negotiate this Hobbesian state of nature.
As Reichberg also notes, Vattel put the following conditions on the justifiability of some country A’s initiating a preventive war against another country B. First, country B must actually pose a potential threat to country A. Second, country B must threaten the very existence of country A. Third, it must intend to pose such a threat. And fourth, it must somehow have actually shown signs of evildoing in the past. Vattel adds the condition that country A must first have tried and failed to secure guarantees from country B that it will not attack A.
Much of the controversy over the Iraq war had to do with whether a preventive war is morally justifiable, and the Bush administration did sometimes say things that implied that the war was preventive in nature. But as I argued at the time, this particular aspect of the debate was a red herring. The main rationale for the war was that Saddam had not complied with the terms of the ceasefire of the Gulf War, so that the U.S. and her allies were justified in restarting hostilities in order to force compliance. Whatever one thinks of this as a rationale, it is not an appeal to preventive war. Hence, any criticism of the Iraq war should, in my view, focus on other aspects of it (such as the intelligence failure vis-à-vis WMD and the folly of the nation-building enterprise the war led to).
The case of Iran
What matters for present purposes, though, is the relevance of all this to the war with Iran. Now, it was Israel rather than Iran that initiated the current hostilities. Was this morally justifiable?
It seems clear to me that it was justifiable by Vattel’s criteria for preventive war. But as a natural law theorist, I don’t think preventive war can be justified, so that particular point is moot. However, that does not entail that it was wrong for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear program. For it can plausibly be seen as a justifiable preemptive rather than preventive attack. To be sure, Iran was not preparing a specific nuclear attack operation, since it does not have nuclear weapons. But Israel can make the following argument: Iran has already been in a state of war with Israel for years; its leadership has repeatedly threatened Israel’s destruction; if it acquired nuclear weapons, it would actually be capable of carrying out this threat; and it has for years been trying to acquire them. Destroying its nuclear program is therefore not merely a preventive action, but in the relevant sense an act of preempting an attack (in its very earliest stages, as it were) that Israel has good reason to think Iran intends.
This seems to me a strong argument, so I think that Israel can indeed make the case that it has a just cause, at least insofar as its aim is simply to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. (A more ambitious goal of regime change would be much harder to justify, for the same reason that, as I said in my earlier article, it would not be justifiable for the U.S. to attempt regime change. But here I am just addressing the more limited aim of destroying Iran’s nuclear capability.)
However, this does not entail that the U.S. is justified in attacking Iran. Note first that the recent U.S. bombing was not carried out in response to any act of war on Iran’s part against the United States. True, some have pointed out that U.S. and Iranian-backed forces have been involved in various skirmishes in recent decades. But it would be dishonest to pretend that that had anything to do with the recent U.S. action. If Iran’s nuclear program had not been in the picture, Trump would not have ordered the bombing. Hence, if the U.S. is claiming to be acting in justifiable self-defense, it could plausibly do so only by the criteria governing preemptive war or preventive war.
But in fact, it cannot plausibly do so. Note first that the U.S. action does not meet even Vattel’s criteria for preventive war. For even if Iran already had nuclear weapons, it would not pose a threat to the very existence of the United States (the way it would pose a threat to the very existence of Israel). For one thing, Iran lacks any plausible means of getting a nuclear device into the United States; for another, even if it could do so, it would hardly be able to destroy the country as a whole. Hence, any “preventive war” case for U.S. self-defense is fanciful. And if that is true, then it is even more obvious that the U.S. cannot plausibly meet the more stringent criteria for a preemptive war case. Iran simply cannot plausibly be said to have been in the process of planning a nuclear attack on the U.S., even in the looser sense in which it might be said to have been planning such an attack on Israel.
I conclude that no serious case can be made that the U.S. attack on Iran was a justifiable act of self-defense. However, there is one further way the attack might seem to be justified. Couldn’t the U.S. argue that, even though it couldn’t plausibly hold that it was defending itself, it was justifiably helping its ally Israel to defend itself?
Certainly, it can be justifiable to help an ally defend itself. But whether it ought to do so in any particular case depends on various circumstances. For example, suppose Iran actually had a nuclear weapon, and it was known that it was about to deploy it against Israel and that only the U.S. could stop the attack. I would say that in that sort of scenario, the U.S. not only could intervene to stop such an attack but would be morally obligated to do so. And it would also be morally justifiable for the U.S. to intervene in order to help Israel in other, less dire scenarios.
But we are not now in a situation remotely close to such scenarios. There are various ways Israel could stop Iran’s nuclear program by itself–as it appears Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has acknowledged. Meanwhile, there are serious potential downsides to U.S. involvement. American troops could be killed by Iranian retaliatory strikes, the U.S. economy could be hit hard if Iran closes off the Strait of Hormuz, and if the Iranian regime were to collapse the U.S. could be drawn into a quagmire in attempting to mitigate the resulting chaos. Yes, such things might not in fact happen, but they plausibly could happen, and keeping one’s fingers crossed is not a serious way to approach the application of just war criteria. If Israel doesn’t strictly need the U.S. to intervene and intervention poses such potential risks to U.S. interests, then the U.S. should not intervene.
Hence, I am inclined to conclude the following about the U.S. attack, even if (as we can hope) it does indeed turn out to be a “one and done” operation. Was the American bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities intrinsically wrong? No. But did it meet all the conditions of just war doctrine, all things considered? No.
(Editor’s note: This essay was first posted, in slightly different form, on the author’s blog on June 23. 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.
Words, words and more words. We’re drowning in words. Good leaders are men and women of action. We live in a culture where a plethora of words is designed to replace action when it’s action that’s called for. The only relevant question remains: “Is it in the interest of the United States and its citizens that Iran NOT possess nuclear weapons.”
Ny first thoughts, too.
Israel, our ally is fighting for its life. Iran is run by a terrorist regime that vows death to us and Israel. No one in the region wants a nuclear-armed Iran. Israel didn’t have the means to destroy underground nuclear facilities. We did. (Hopefully.)
Sounds good to me.
Thanks for preempting my intended comment!
In addition to preventive and preemptive wars, does the 21st century calculus also include the tighter iteration of first strike in what is already a “war”? And then there’s the modernday reality that we have not only countries, but networks. And then the common denominator that real or even perceived weakness invites stalling and aggression or nuclear blackmail. We are in uncharted territory when actions and inaction, both, can have catastrophic consequences.
“War” requires congressional approval of Congress and according to Michael Schuer, former Intelligence officer – we haven’t had a constitutional war in decades. And lost many. Donald Trump is routinely erroneously de-briefed about Iran, and wrongly lied to about his assasination attempt. Iran never harmed him (Blackrock was involved, not Iran.) The mass starvation of Palestinians, and the AID crisis resulting in shootings of innocent Palestinians after walking for miles for a tiny box of a few items by Israeli officers was suddenly diverted by the suddenness of events. (Media, uncontrolled, said by Billy Graham, needs to be freed or our nation will never be free.) Iran has been declared as having no nuclear weapons. (by many agencies, intelligence officers, former ones, etc.) Just like Iraq was found not to possess any “WMD’s” . after the fact. And of Afhganistan, Syria, etc. The same will be declared of Iran.
Israel, confirmed by former Intelligence officers Robert David Steele and Michael
Schuer, is the problem in our government, and in other governments in the world and our nation as a whole. True Jews do not support Israel or claim they ever created it. (NKusa.org, reference).
Their government has pushed our government into unconstitutional war after another, for it to return to our country as sin and moral perishment. Donald Trump needs to be prayed over and for – to listen to God’s wisdom or he will perish, not the Father of Lies (KJV) or Israel’s government, the world, etc.
Joe Biden:”Israel was invented. If Israel was not invented, another Israel would have to be invented.”
Jean Paul Sartre: “If the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him.”
More leftist moronic nonsense plus lots more words.
It is absurd to think that any country which calls Israel the “Little Satan” and the U.S. the “Great Satan” will not use nuclear weapons against what it sees as the bigger enemy, considering it has been behind all sorts of terrorism in the world for the past 40 years.
What if we waited until they had made actual bombs? A Democrat president might be in power by then and, given the present crop of Dem politicians and candidates, there is no guarantee their response to such danger would be any better than Clinton’s, Obama’s and Biden’s.
On the definition of “preventive threat” given by the author, Iran producing a nuke in the next few months (how do we know otherwise?) surely fulfils that specification. The sophistry of this article is practically the encyclopedia definition of the word.
So-called “preventive war” is not a species of just war principle; it is a species of the ends justifies the means and unjust war and is alien and competitive and antagonistic to Catholic tradition and way.
Just war principle and natural law suffice for all situations.
Israel has no preeminent rights. Neither does Zionism. Zionism and Israel claiming preeminent rights do not inhere preeminent rights to the US or anyone else.
The US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities can likely be justified, given the insanity of the regime (Trump appears to be correct with this one). That said, preemptive war is a slippery slope.
What if Trump decided to attack the Mexican Government due to illegal immigration? Attack a peaceful neighbor for a questionable reason. It could happen. We need to be very careful about preemptive war.
William, you’re spewing nonsense.
And what is that nonsense O wise one? Please enlighten us with your wisdom.
“Words words words” – well said.
I am reminded of June of 1981 – Iraq (Saddam Hussein) was building a nuclear reactor in Tuwaitha, near Baghdad. Hussein promised that it was for peaceful purposes but no one believed him, and at the same time no one had the nerve to do anything.
Except Israel – 8 Israeli F-16s flattened the site with 2,000 lb. bombs, an action for which they were roundly condemned world-wide.
Now President Trump, after REPEATEDLY saying that Iran can NOT have a nuclear bomb and inviting them to the table to talk – even after 46 years (and counting) of “Death to America!!” being the national song in that country, has taken the step that had to be taken.
And the good doctor is free to pontificate.
I’m not anti-intellectual. We need good minds, theologians, & philosophers. But sometimes you just need action.
The concept of “preventive war” is ill-taken. It is accepted by all nations and expressed or implied in the Charter of the United Nations that the use of armed force, in a manner not inconsistent with the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security, is lawful. This presupposes the existence of a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, and this has been certified by the Security Council acting against Iran under Chapter VII.
There is a threat to the peace where a state commits an internationally wrongful act which is so serious as to be reasonably coercible with lethal force (grave). If the international obligation breached is erga omnes under customary international law or owed to each and all the members of the United Nations, then the United States was and remains within its rights to
The gravely wrongful act must have a continuing character, either alone or in combination with the failure by the delinquent state to implement in full its legal consequences according to the law concerning state responsibility (lasting).
There must be certainty of the primary facts on which a threat to the peace can reasonably be found – the intervention of the Security Council under Chapter VII provides this.
The necessity of using armed force on this occasion – with very few fatalities – arises from the only alternative course, which is to wait until Iran operationalizes a nuclear weapon, and then to unleash multiple nuclear strikes upon Iran at the cost of millions of deaths.
Jeremiah got it right. “Peace, peace when there is no peace”…THAT’S the alternative we’ve embraced until now. Let’s hope we return ideologically to the ancient paths of true peace that our forefathers sought to embrace when this nation was formed. We’re toast if we don’t.
We might also be toast if Iran gets a nuclear bomb.
When did the USA follow ancient paths of true peace? We began with a revolution/civil war & followed that not long after by invading our neighbor to the north. Later we invaded our neighbor to the South & it’s just kept on going.
Wars are terrible things to be avoided, but destroying a ticking time bomb is a prudent thing. An action fraught with danger, but more prudent than just waiting for it go off.
Not up to Dr. Feser’s usual standards. It’s preposterous to suggest that in the modern day one has to wait for a notorious state sponsor of terror to actually possess weapons of mass destruction before one can take “preventative action.”
Such are the musings of the “peace in our times” of a Nevill Chamberlain “peace niks” of our day.
And by an author that champions the melding of faith and reason whose most recent articles give aid and comfort to the historic aggressors evangelizing the world at the tip of their sword. Not one word condemning the barbaric attacks on all infidels.
This is one of those times when there is more wisdom in the pews than in the pulpit. The above responses show that to be true. Further, Dr. Feser is Monday morning quarterbacking. IF, IF, IF – Iran would have used a nuclear weapon against Israel or the US forces in the area as they said they would – THEN DR Feser and other academics would blame President Trump and the US for negligence in not taking action to provide protection.
Would Dr. Feser be happier with Kamala Harris as President?
When I was in 5th grade, I was attacked on a daily basis by a group of bullies, both boys and girls. They made fun of everything about me–my clothing, my parents (my dad didn’t wear a business suit because he was a pipe fitter), my television at home (it only got one channel)–EVERYTHING! I could do nothing right, everything I wore was laughed at and made fun of, everything I said was laughed at and made fun of-the kids could and did find anything and everything about me to make fun of.
It was torture to go to school–and I had always loved school.
And the teachers in my class did NOTHING about it. I guess they were “modernists” who thought that children should work out their problems themselves without any adult intervention. And in the meantime, I was slowly being destroyed–and even though I am now 68 years old, I still tend to distrust and be wary of people until I figure out if they are genuine or not.
One spring day, I had enough–they were making fun of me on the playground–and I grabbed the meanest girl (who was smaller than me), spun her around, and threw her into the war slide. She collapsed onto the playground, bleeding and unconcious. All the other kids gathered around her, and no one said anything.
Meanwhile, I walked into the school building and sat down at my desk. It was against school rules to come inside during recess unless you were hurt, but supposedly it was also against the rules to make fun of each other, so I didn’t really care about the “rules” anymore because I didn’t trust them. I heard the sirens which meant that an ambulance was at the school. I wasn’t even scared. I didn’t feel badly about hurting someone who had been hurting me all year long.
My teacher and another teacher finally came up to me and my teacher said in hushed voice, “Why did you do this?”
I was so disgusted and angry and disappointed at their total ignorance of what I had been going through ALL YEAR LONG right under their noses that I simply said, in a very quiet and controlled voice (and I remember my words to this day), “All year long all these kids have been making fun of me, my brother’s special orthopedic shoes that has has to wear), my mother and father, my family’s farm, and even our TV–AND YOU TEACHERS DID NOTHING TO HELP ME!!! You are the ones who have done wrong by not helping me.”
The teachers said nothing. They looked at each other and walked away and I was never punished or even admonished. I think they knew that I was absolutely right.
And from then all, ALL the kids respected me and some actually became friendly–including the girl that I had sent to the hospital.
And thankfully, when I entered 6th grade, I had a teacher who gave a d-mn and actually managed a peaceful and friendly classroom of children. From then on, I never had any trouble with kids making fun of me–I was happy with my own body, clothing, and personality and was actually very popular at my Junior High School around thousands of kids (we were the Baby Boomer generation).
So…IMO, there comes a time when someone in charge has to step up and TAKE CHARGE–even if SOME get hurt–in order to stop ALL the people from getting hurt. And sometimes, when it comes to bullies and tyrants, the only “speech” these people understand and respect is “getting beat up.”
I think this is one of those times. For too long, we have been letting hostile nations get away with picking on other nations in the Middle East and even kidnapping and murdering OUR American citizens. It needs to be stopped. Diplomacy means absolutely nothing to these bullies–they only understand and respect equal and/or superior strength.
I’m going to take this as a hint to steer clear of you on the playground Mrs. Sharon.
🙂
Sharon, I wish we had been classmates in school. I never got into a fight. I hated fighting but I also hated bullying. I never backed down when threatened and never showed fear. But not just for myself. I hated bullies and would not allow any kid near me to be bullied. I stood between them and the bullies and the bullies backed down. No one ever hurt me (except my big sister ;-). Was I bluffing ? Maybe, but no one ever tested it. I’m sorry you had to go through that and I hope you were able to take that bad and turn it into good later on. By your take on this ‘non-war’ and Israel and U.S. involvement it sounds like you have. God Bless you.
If the West had acted in 1936 to prevent Hitler from marching into the Rhineland, there would have been to WW II. Iran started this war in 1979 and the body count in quite high. Hopefully, it will now cease.
Amen!
Sorry, “no WW II”
Our world is now too complex [as addressed by PD Beaulieu above] to apply ethical
diagrams that referenced entirely different preexisting dynamics. And attempting to tailor a viable response to the question of just war now extends to multiple variables, changing conditions that would alter judgment.
As such a preemptive strike made in the context of known conditions, when negotiation fails has reasonable ethical justification – rather than be reduced to moral inertia and the surrender of the right of a nation to defend itself.
Basically, much is now left insofar as ethics to the moral calibre of the agent.
Feser’s article can be summed up quite succinctly: “orange man still bad, orange man still bad!”
Athanasius – I wish, and my confreres wish, I could be that succinct 🙂
Thank you!
Some interesting anomalies about Iran…
Iran joined the United Nations in 1945 as one of the original fifty founding members.
Iran’s goals: The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all. They are a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. Learn more and take action. What could “take action” portend? Iran remains the biggest adversary of the US in the region since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Irab’s Charter has been discarded in favor of violence and hatred. Why? It “exiled” Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who went to the US for treatment of a terminal illness.
We have seen Iranians in Tehran’s streets protesting the suppression of the Ayatollah’s regime.
I have asked if the Aytollah Komeni is Iran’s spiritual leader, why wouldn’t other world religious world leaders suggest a meeting with Iran’s leader to help in reducing the violence? Political diplomacy seems to have failed.
Just to reiterate a few factual errors:
Iran was very near having nuclear weapons per the U.S. and Israeli intelligence.
If/when producing such nuclear weapons they DO have ICBMs which they have been using against Israel in the past few weeks. Those ICBMs could reach the East Coast of the U.S.A.. They have railed death threats against both Israel and U.S. for years but not strong enough to carry it out until recently.
Iran, via its proxies such as Hamas, Hesbolla Huthies, etc have been firing rockets into Israel civilian lands for years. (Think how that must be to live with day and night). Israel wan NOT able to destroy the Nuclear bomb sites because, tho it had the Bunker Busters Bombs they lacked to ability to deploy them as they are beyond the weight capabilities of most aircraft. The U.S. had such capabilities and was clear they would help Israel in that way. No boots on the ground BUT our very brave and highly skilled military men who volunteered for this highly dangerous and never before employed used exemplary skill and discipline to accomplish this feat with any known casualties. Also, the use of clever decoy of holding a meeting away from the location…I shouldn’t go on but just hearing the details left me in awe. There should be a movie made of this. When all was done multiple countries around the world took a sigh of relief that after decades the dark cloud that that held the Middle East hostage.
Lastly, be aware, if you’ve ever been in a position where you were called to make life or death calls for which you might likely be held accountable especially if those calls didn’t work as hoped you might have a sliver of empathy with President Trump and all his cabinet members and military and intelligence people as they undoubtedly knew well they would be condemned by some no matter the outcome. Proof is right here in this article and several replies. I believe, and I don’t say this lightly, that God chose Donald J Trump to be in the place he is and to lead at this time in our history. He didn’t write a letter of recommendation. He doesn’t have to. He’s God and God is all knowing, all loving and Good. God Bless the U.S.A. God Bless Israel. God Bless Iran and God Bless President Donald J Trump.
Amen, Miss Mary.🙏
God can write straight using crooked lines. Or broken people. We all share in that brokenness.
You really worship the Great Pumpkin. Amazing and disconcerting.
An indepth and appreciated analysis! And, so many insightful comments here, that I will be succinct with one additional effect on my opinion. One of my considerations was how my late father, a career Army officer (Logistics and Ordnance) through WWII, Korea, Vietnam) and devout Catholic would have evaluated this attack. I turned to my brother, a military historian who knew him well on these matters. His opinion was that my father, who also traveled extensively in the Middle East, without equivocation, would have supported the strike.
And, yes, Iran has declared war on the USA for decades, and nuclear armament would reach us. In some ways, we have been remarkably restrained, and even this action was limited, narrowly targeted and to weaponization, not people.
Iran does not have ICBM’s that can reach the US. That is incorrect. I agree with taking out Iran’s nuclear program, but let’s be accurate about their actual capabilities.
I don’t know whether Iran has missiles that can reach the US but it certainly has the means to hit US military bases.
I’m glad you agree about taking out Iran’s nuclear program. I sure hope it was set back for some time. I guess we’ll see.
This is the third time I’ve posted this correction. Believe what ever suits you to believe BUT
IRAN has been using ICBMs against Israel for at least the past few weeks. That knowledge, combined with what US intelligence forces know in detail about how they were building their nuclear site gave rise to the very nuclear threat to all of the Middle East, Europe, The U.S. etc with us being their most valued targets. It is hard to keep up with what is happening over there but remember that our Executive branch, military top brass have been collecting and reviewing data for years on this. Note the press report given by Joint Chief of Staff Commander Gen. Dan Caine who has given two live press briefings. Among many facts of precision training and disciplined brave conduct on this serious mission he told (in the second press briefing) the history of our military intelligence where two men spent 15 years, quietly and secretly watching the day to day construction of Iran’s nuclear facility that went beyond what any civilian nuclear power would ever need. FIFTEEN YEARS! So this is all new to you and me and most all of us who sit back and feel free to second guess what is known and unknown simply based upon what WE know. There are some pretty intelligent and highly educated people on this discussion and in our society but wisdom and prudence is often lacking. Thankfully President Trump has both.
Iran is an arm of of fundamental Islam as handed down from Mohammed with the message “convert or die.” Thus, they are a serious threat to world peace. They have no interest in peace treaties. Only conquest will satisfy their desires. Nuclear weapons in their hands would be a disaster. Iran must be defeated.
I saw a comment at the Babylon Bee this evening:
“Iran doesn’t have any Walmarts, just Targets.”
🙂
Note: I posted the last comment on Dr Edward Feser’s first Article on this topic.
Not to belabor this subject anymore but the clearest, most cogent and succinct article on this topic was published today on Real Clear Politics by Peter Berkowitz. 5 Errors About Iran’s War on Israel, America and the West. Posted on June 29, 2025