It has been said that the first casualty of war is truth. I wonder whether we should say instead that the first casualty of war is clear reasoning, even on the part of intelligent and knowledgeable people.
On the one hand, we have the Pope’s warning that God does not listen to those who wage war. On the other hand, we have the president’s warning of a possible end to Iranian civilization. Neither is helpful.
The Pope speaks as though he had forgotten that the Church distinguishes between just and unjust wars, and that justice in war does not require that nobody is hurt. In turn, the president speaks as though he had forgotten that there is a difference between defeating an adversary and destroying his entire civilization, and that one must not do what is intrinsically evil so that good will result.
In charity, I will assume that neither of these two men meant what his words seemed to mean. The question remains: Is the war in Iran just?
In order to apply the principles of just war—principles, by the way, to which not only the Church but also the United States has formally committed itself, including them in the training of its officers—we must bring the facts to mind and keep them there. An obvious fact is that the United States is far from perfect. The more salient fact, however, is that the Iranian regime is not just imperfect. Iran is ruled by terroristic fanatics who systematically undermine peace in the region, already possess missiles that can hit Europe, are very close to the achievement of nuclear weapons by which they can threaten and utterly destroy their neighbors, and have a history of negotiating in bad faith.
Let us also dismiss the cynics, relativists, and believers in moral equivalency. A terrorist is not just a freedom fighter by another name, for the term “terrorist” has an objective meaning. Terrorists refuse to abide by the principles of just war, although they may opportunistically employ the language of just war and international law in order to advance their aims. The Iranian regime is properly called terroristic because it routinely targets innocents and noncombatants, explicitly preaches hatred and death, and supplies and funds terror groups in other nations.
Like the term “terrorist,” the term “fanatic” also has objective meaning. A fanatic is not merely someone who holds his beliefs strongly; the question is what he believes strongly. Nor is he merely someone who strongly holds beliefs other than his own; the question is whether he strongly holds evil beliefs and is willing to act on them to the harm of others. The belief of the Iranian regime that Allah countenances the deliberate targeting of innocents and noncombatants is simply evil. This fact should not be controversial.
Yet for the war against the Iranian regime to be just, it is not enough that the regime consists of very bad people. Just war tradition embraces a series of principles, first concerning whether a given war may be started in the first place (jus ad bellum), second as to how it must be fought (jus in bello).
Let’s see how the present war measures up.
Jus ad bellum: Criteria for justice in going to war
Just cause. War may be waged only to vindicate justice, restore a just international order, protect innocent life, or restore human rights. By this criterion, it is very difficult to argue against the justice of the American cause. The aims of the United States are first, to prevent the Iranian regime from attaining nuclear weapons, and second, to degrade its ability to commit aggression against its neighbors, both in the region and beyond it. Apparently, although the United States would welcome regime change, it would be satisfied if these two aims could be achieved, with regime change or without it.
Competent public authority. War may be waged only against those who are responsible for public order and have the authority to commit forces. Despite claims to the contrary, the administration has followed the provisions of America’s War Powers Act. Critics ignore and misrepresent them.
Right intention. The aim of war must be the restoration of a just peace, not mere aggrandizement. Preventing fanatics from continuing their terroristic policies, especially by nuclear means, is hardly an evil intention.
Last resort. Nonviolent alternatives to war must be exhausted before hostilities begin. This does not mean that one may never go to war, simply because it is always possible to say “Let’s talk” yet one more time, but that one should not go to war until it is plain to a reasonable person that talking has failed. The Iranian regime has consistently violated all of its agreements and persistently used the pretense of negotiation to gain time, both to continue its aggression and to refine enough uranium for nuclear weapons. In such a situation, force would seem to be the only way to make diplomacy in good faith possible again.
Proportionality. The good expected from the attainment of the war’s aims must exceed the harm which the war brings about. I do not think a reasonable person can doubt that the good of preventing the Iranian regime from attaining nuclear weapons, together with the good of deprecating its ability to inflict unjust harm on other countries, whether in the region, in Europe, or, ultimately, on our own side of the Atlantic, greatly exceed the harm which is brought about by closely targeted strikes on military and nuclear assets.
This is the case even granting that some noncombatants whose death is not intended will also die. We are told that the next set of targets includes bridges and power plants used especially for military purposes. Should the set expand to include facilities which are used not only for military but also for partly civilian purposes, the balance between harm prevented and harm brought about would certainly shift.
Even then, however, considering the horrifying prospect of nuclear-armed terroristic fanatics with long-range ballistic missiles, it would be difficult for a reasonable person to argue that the proportionality criterion is not satisfied.
Probability of success. War should not be started unless there is a reasonable expectation that it can achieve its aims. If the American objective is to destroy the Iranian regime’s military ability and nuclear prospects for good, then I don’t think success is possible until the regime is irrecoverably destroyed, something we cannot reasonably be sure of doing.
But if the objective is to destroy its military ability and nuclear prospects for now—recognizing that military action may again be necessary in the future–then this can certainly be attained. From a military point of view, even the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to peaceful shipping does not seem to be overwhelmingly difficult. The greatest difficulty in calculating the probability of success is not military, but political.
Will the American public lose patience so quickly that the war is brought to an end prematurely, leaving not a weakened Iran, but an emboldened one? This depends in part on how well the administration explains what it is trying to do. It could be doing better.
Jus in bello: Criteria for justice in waging war
Proportionality. As we have seen, the proportionality principle applies to the decision to go to war, but it also applies to how it is fought. Even in prosecuting the war, deadly force should be employed only to the degree necessary to achieve a just purpose, and never if it produces more harm than good. So far, the United States has employed deadly force only against military targets selected in accord with its just war aims, so this principle seems to have been satisfied.
Prohibition of evil means. Intrinsically evil means may not be used even for just ends. For example, one may not take hostages or execute prisoners of war. United States forces have so far done nothing of the kind.
Discrimination. The deliberate targeting of innocents and noncombatants is categorically prohibited. Although some noncombatants are always harmed, American forces have never aimed at their hurt. One must bear in mind that terroristic regimes often deliberately situate military facilities as close to civilian structures as possible, or even inside them, so that the military targets cannot be hit without risking unintended harm to civilians.
Taking such a risk is not in itself a violation of the discrimination principle, provided that the principle of proportionality is also honored.
Good faith. So far as possible, one should wage war in ways which permit the possibility of a just peace. One cannot achieve reconciliation with fanatics who loathe the prospect of a just peace, but at least one must do nothing to encourage their loathing. Unavoidably, losing will humiliate the adversary, but humiliation should not be the victor’s intention.
For all these reasons, it seems to me that this war is just.
It is unlikely that my words would ever come to the attention of either my Pope or my president, but I will close as though they would.
Mr. President, you could do a far better job of explaining why the war against the Iranian regime is just. In view of our country’s commitment to just war principles, you must more clearly explain how the war complies with them. Loose talk about the possibility of the destruction of Iranian civilization if the Iranian regime continues its nuclear intransigence gives the appearance that you intend the destruction of Iranian civilization, even if you have no such thing in mind. Such carelessness gravely undermines your effort to justify the war’s morality. Some say, “That sort of threat is the only language which the Iranian regime understands.” But the Iranian regime does not seem to care about Iranian civilization; only the Iranian people do. If at this point in time, the only language which the Iranian regime understands is force, then, reluctantly, use force. Do not give the appearance of threatening what it would be wrong to deliberately bring about.
Your Holiness, careless language that implies there is no such thing as a just war undermines the hope of encouraging nations to abide by just war principles. The Church’s tradition no more forbids force to restore tranquillitas ordinis than it forbids the Swiss Guard from preventing the detonation of bombs in the Vatican. Moreover, the Church teaches that the prudent application of just war principles lies properly in the hands of those responsible for public authority. If the American public authorities have so grossly misapplied these principles that the Church must say so, then as shepherd and teacher of the faith, you are obligated to explain precisely how their reasoning errs. I humbly submit that if you wish the moral authority of the Church to be taken seriously in such a case, you must also explain why the Church has not always condemned the far greater violations of these principles by the states that sponsor international terror.
(Editor’s note: This essay was posted originally on April 13, 2026, in slightly different form, on the author’s blog and is posted here with kind permission.)
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 criteria of just cause is – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain. Translating into the language of international law, there must be certainty of the existence of an internationally wrongful act, and it must be lasting (it must have a continuing character) and grave, sufficiently grave that the use of arms to enforce its legal consequences would not be entirely unreasonable.
It is a 20-year grave violation of Resolutions, adopted by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, for Iran to pursue a nuclear weapons programme.
On what grounds does Pope Leo think that the US Government’s evaluation of the just war criteria in this case is not open to a reasonable person acting reasonably.
“God does not listen to those who wage war.” I quite certain that Pius V and Innocent XI, among others, would disagree.
We read: “The Iranian regime is properly called terroristic because it routinely targets innocents and noncombatants, explicitly preaches hatred and death, and supplies and funds terror groups in other nations.”
Two comments, and a question:
FIRST, the jihadist network clearly knows that killing of innocents is immoral, but they are experiencing a horrified “desire to escape reality or transform it along the lines of a second reality more congenial to the ‘pneumopathological’ terrorist imagination.’ The italicized term applies to a spiritual sickness rather than any psychological disorder or more rational thought process at least calculated to achieve justice, if by whatever means. They know what they are doing; “They are not psychopaths who cannot distinguish good and evil or innocence and guilt” (Barry Cooper, “Jihadists’ and the War on Terrorism,” The Intercollegiate Review, Spring 2007).
SECOND, it seems to me, out here in the back bleachers, that so-called modernity has entered uncharted territory. The West debates the arithmetic of a “just war” while the alternative universe knows that “jihad” is the very definition of a just war. Equally incomprehensible in the historical mix is the surreal and very existence of atomic weapons (say what?).
If only Trump would speak the language of statesmanship. But in a city dump it might be that if you want the elementary protection of a junkyard dog, then you have to put up with the barking. A package deal? And, if we want the insight of St. Augustine, then the high-altitude language of the “City of God” might have to do…but…
“Midway between these two cities, of which one is the negation of the other, there is situated a neutral zone where the men of our day hope to construct a third city [!], which would be temporal like the earthly city, yet just in a temporal way, that is striving toward a temporal justice obtainable by appropriate means. Such an idea seems never to have occurred to St. Augustine, at least he never spoke of it” (Etienne Gilson in his Forward to “The City of God,” Image, 1958).
QUESTION: With the ‘pneumopathological’ unlaw of Jihad, and with the universal Law of Unintended Consequences—in real time what is the new Calculus in the “third city”?
Here’s a reality check:
-The most defenseless human person is someone in his mother’s womb.
-The most innocent human person is someone in his mother’s womb.
– The most vulnerable human person is someone in his mother’s womb.
Every year, just in the USA alone, over one million human persons in his mother’s womb is murdered. Now, consider this:
A majority of those who call themselves Catholic now support this slaughter. That is a moral disgrace. One would think that the Pope and the collective body of bishops would be on a continual crusade against this slaughter of the innocents but they are not.
But Catholics are not missing an opportunity to virtue signal against the killing in Iran for political purposes. The pretense is nothing if not disgusting.
What’s the problem here? Catholics are no longer outraged by the killing of defenseless, vulnerable and innocent human persons. Spare me the hand wringing over Iran.
There can be NO PEACE in a world where millions and millions and millions of human lives are murdered year after year by abortion done with the consent of the babies’ mothers and fathers. When the Pope and bishops have shown a willingness to speak out in every place, at every time, in every opportunity about the slaughter taking place worldwide, then they can speak about military actions like Iran. Not before.
War is not just another government project. It is death, destruction and suffering. It cannot be undertaken lightly. It is a last resort. Regarding Iran, a good case can be made for taking out their nuclear capabilities. Taking out civilian targets, such as water treatment plants are more difficult to justify
When we bomb another country, we are crossing a line. We are at war. I understand the need for the element of surprise, but Trump should have gotten retroactive approval from Congress for these actions. There is that matter of the Constitution.
He also needs to level with the American people. The war is going to last longer than a few weeks. The price of oil and gasoline will go up. There will be sacrifice. Finally, we need to pay for the war. Suspend the tax cuts for the duration of the war. Do not fight this war on borrowed money. Don’t sugarcoat the war. No happy talk about how we have already won.
I did not vote for Trump, but like it or not, he is the President. We should support him with the war effort and he should lead. Stop playing so much golf and act like a war President. Visit the troops. Call for sacrifice, including taxes to pay for the war. Be serious.
Thank you for this lucid reasonable and appropriate response and challenge.
Michael
Thanks to Dr. Budziszewski for his careful and thoughtful analysis of the just war theory as applied to Iran. We know that President Trump’s rhetoric often is over the top. However, it is disappointing that our three “influential” cardinals and Pope Leo, who have no doubt studied philosophy, theology, history, even canon law, cannot think clearly on the issue. As religious leaders, they certainly should know better.
Perhaps they are too possessed by a semi-Marxist hard left ideology which has infiltrated the Vatican and the hierarchy. They have become “don’t confuse me with the
facts” men.
Extremely well written. Thank you.
Bravo. One might further point out to the Holy Father that stability of doctrine is essential to the Church’s claims about its own nature and authority. The Church is not a political party that can trim its sails to the prevailing winds in search of electoral victory. It can’t have a new doctrine with every new Pope, or its claim to authority is hollow. There is more at stake here than this one issue. If a new pope means a new doctrine, why should I or anyone submit our mind and will to the authority of the church?
Thank you for taking the time to lay out the argument for this war abiding by just war principles, Professor Bud. As I’m sure you’re aware, there are certainly many who have come to the opposite conclusion while also invoking just war principles; but for something as serious as actual, not hypothetical, war, the discourse is welcome and necessary. It’s certainly given me a few thoughts to chew on.
I agree with this 100%, and I thank Mr. Budziszewski for his essay.
I underscore that I agree with his criticism of the recent public statements by both President Trump and Pontiff Leo.
I have a diminishing store of trust in Pontiff Leo and his Vatican colleagues, primarily because of their appalling persistence in maintaining their Secret Accord with the brutal Communist State Regime of China. Obviously, after a yest of operation in their new administration, the Pontiff Leo and his right-hand-man Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin intend to keep the toxic and polluted Secret Accord with the Evil Communist State Regime in China, and they blithely assume that Catholic faithful will believe that they are not operating under the influence of the evil regime of China, which everyone knows is the ally of the evil Islamic Revolution Regime running Iran.
It is absurd and preposterous that the Pontiff Leo and the Eminence Parolin assume that they can assert moralizing political positions while the maintaining their immoral Secret Accord with China, long-sought and finally confected by the Secretariat of State Parolin and his agent Theodore McCarrick, under the horrific Pontiff Francis. They believe that Catholic faithful are going to assume they are not politically compromised?
Apparently, Pontiff Leo and Cardinal Parolin think that they can get away with their posturing and theatrics, and that faithful Catholic people in the US are going to be persuaded by “the-3 Stooges-of-McCarrick,” the false shepherds Cupich and McElroy and Tobin.
These men greatly over-estimate their portfolio.
Our Lady of Discernment, pray for us
This piece is strongest where it rejects absolute pacifism and insists that war must be judged by moral principle, not by tribal passion. It is weakest where it misreads the pope’s office, lets loaded language outrun proof, treats contested prudential judgments as nearly self-evident, and fails to show that its supposed principles would still hold if applied consistently beyond Iran (North Korea, Russia, China, Pakistan have the potential to be just wars too from all stated intentions and principles). https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-strong-language-hides-weak-principles-tim-vail-phd-1vpjc
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/moral-miscalculation-americas-misunderstanding-of-iran-is-leading-to-catastrophe
One would think that a regime of “extremist theocracy hell bent (literally) on destroying Jews and Christians via nuclear (and other) massive means of destruction”, is a threat that, even if they didn’t have nuclear weapons, must be contained , in the Hope that they might be converted. Therein lies the real miscalculation. It is a sin to accommodate an occasion of sin and cooperate with that which is evil. There is a difference between a theocracy grounded in Love and The Hope Of Salvation and a theocracy grounded in death and destruction, and that difference makes all the difference.
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/moral-miscalculation-americas-misunderstanding-of-iran-is-leading-to-catastrophe
( “extremist theocracy hell bent (literally) on destroying Jews and Christians via nuclear (and other) massive means of destruction” quote from comments section)
Prayers that we may retreat from our conflict with Iran, having weakened the ability to cause harm, and that all persons have a change of heart regarding accommodating an occasion of sin and cooperation with evil, because Human Life is Sacred and we thus have a responsibility to protect innocent Human Life from harm, if we desire to Love our neighbor as ourselves, and thus desire their Salvation.
🙏✝️💕🌹
Required reading for heads of state and religion. Professor Budziszewski’s set of principles should be made available to both president Trump and Pope Leo despite the professor’s doubt they will.