The Iran Conflict: Debates About What Makes a Just War

In looking at the Iran war from a faith perspective, many Catholic voices are rendering opinions (here and here, for instance ) as to whether the war meets or does not meet “just war” principles. The debate is warranted.

As a Catholic, using the “lens” of the principles of a just war does allow a reasoned way to evaluate what is occurring. Unfortunately, it is not always clear and, I for one, can oscillate back and forth as to the correct answer.

In a recent post, I highlighted eight principles/criteria for a just war (in the context of acquiring Greenland). In viewing the criteria for the Iran conflict, it appears that five of those principles have gained the most attention and debates.

Principle of Just Cause

In terms of the act of initiating a war, the principle of just cause is the main one. Primarily, this justification is about war being necessary for national self-defense and that the enemy (Iran) poses an immediate danger.

Whether Iran really posed an “imminent threat” is the focus of the main debate.

Iran has been an ongoing threat for 47 years. The radical Muslim dictatorship more or less declared war on the US starting with the taking of our American embassy hostages in 1979.  Iran also supports Muslim extremist proxy groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. As such, concern over Iran’s actions and motives are valid.

For example, the Foundation of the Defense of Democracies cited 45 instances since 1979 (such as the bombing of our Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983) whereby attacks by Iran or their proxies have killed hundreds of Americans.

Iran’s rhetoric and record of supporting attacks by proxies against Israel and the US would seemed to indicate a high probability of more actions.  A very valid question is, if they got the bomb would they use it and their missiles against Israel and potentially the US?

The U.S. government has maintained that a major purpose of the current conflict was to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. Some experts contend that Iran could build a bomb in days or weeks. Others don’t think that is possible.

The International Atomic Energy Agency that assesses international nuclear capabilities, hasn’t had access to Iran’s nuclear program since the US bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2025. So, is it possible to really know? But due to the potential serious consequences, is it responsible to not assume the worst?

That there is a human rights case for intervention because of Iran’s repression of its people is an additional justification.  According to one estimate the Iranian government killed 30,000 Iranian citizens in recent riots.

No Just Cause?

However, suggestions that there was not an immediate threat gained traction from Trump administration officials briefings to congressional staff, according to the Associated Press (AP). According to the AP, intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the U.S. There was a more general threat in the region from Iran’s missiles and proxy forces. These posed the imminent threat.

Adding to the debate was President Trumps counter-terrorism chief, Joe Kent, quitting over the Iran War he maintains was not being necessary. He was quoted as saying “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and a powerful lobby.”

According to some Prominent Catholic voices a just cause has not been established.

The Holy Father made an initial statement “Stability and peace are not achieved through mutual threats, nor through the use of weapons, which sow destruction, suffering, and death, but only through reasonable, sincere, and responsible dialogue.”

Cardinal McElroy (the Archbishop of Washington D,C.), was more specific noting that the war is not moral and that “speculation” does not support a preventive war.

Catholic philosopher Edward Feser opined that we are nowhere near an “eminent threat.” While Iran may pose a threat to Israel, it does not pose one to the United States, he said. Feser even went so far as to suggest we should stay out Iran’s affairs “which are none of our business.

In my opinion, however, Feser’s views appear extremely naïve given Iran’s actions over the last 47 years. We have no choice – Iran is our business.

Imminent threat or not, the Iranian government has been an unstable radical actor who is the world’s leader in sponsoring terrorism. And Iran hates the United States. Because of past actions and unpredictability by Iran and its proxies are a serious danger to peace. The debate boils down to whether attacking Iran was necessary at this time.

Principle of Last Resort

The principle of last Resort requires exhausting all other avenues before going to war.

There have been many negotiations with Iran’s leaders under President Trump and other Presidents. Iran has consistently offered false promises, threats, and stalling tactics over acquiring nuclear weapons and missile capabilities.

Likewise, Iran’s disruptive activities supporting their proxy’s actions against the US and its allies has shown Iran does not negotiate in good faith and is not trustworthy. The fruitless and failed negotiations with Iran, and all the harm it has caused, required some kind of action.

However, Catholic leaders most always respond that more dialogue is preferable to military conflict.  Voices, including the Holy Father, suggest this principle has not been met and a cease fire and more dialogue is needed.

Principle of Reasonable Probability of Success

This principle has to do with the necessity of having proper planning with a high probability of success. The military buildup in the region and the initial targeted systematic bombing and missile sorties would certainly imply proper planning.

Edward Feser does not agree with this conclusion.  He says Iran’s resiliency providing drone and missile attacks, their capability to stop shipping in the straits of Hormuz, and the diminishing of U.S. munitions are examples of our actions creating other problems that can affect the success of the conflict.

Iran’s retaliatory response does raise legitimate questions.  But unleashing the “dogs of war” often leads to unanticipated consequences.  These consequences can and do affect mission success.

As with other just war principles the debate over eventual success will be ongoing, especially as the battlefield changes.

Principle of Proportionality

This principle requires that the damage done by war actions are not disproportionate to those done by the adversary.

Cardinal McElroy concluded “it is far from clear that the benefits of this war will outweigh the harm which will be done” He thinks the U.S. does not meet this principle due to Iran’s expansion of hostilities with missile attacks on its neighbors, potential immense casualties, and the possible disintegration of Iran.

But this conclusion is very premature.  The extent of any harm posed by the U.S. actions is not yet known but Iran’s actions over the last 47 years are known.  Only the conclusion of the conflict will bring about an accurate comparison.

Principle of Rightful Intention

Related to a just cause is a just “intent.” President Trump’s stated intentions, to date, are not resonating with Americans. A recent poll shows that only 33% of Americans approve of the conflict.

Many contend that Trump has not clearly spelled out his intentions.  Lacking this, and due to shifting goals, the principle of rightful intention is hazy.  There are many reasons for the conflict.  However, a clear “end game” has not yet been defined.

War Rhetoric and Facts

A classic comment about war is that “the first casualty is the truth.”

Governments do not provide classified information to the public.  And sometimes they provide us with less than honest information.  As such we end up speculating whether a conflict is a just war or not.  Such speculation is common.  But an additional factor in the “fog of war” is that the chaos often seen in military conflicts can make it difficult to determine what is really happening.

And in this conflict another ‘unique’ problem is President Trump himself. Trump likes to brag, is bellicose, exaggerates, and intimidates. Because of his demeanor a large number of the public and politicians do not trust him and will not consider any of his pronouncements or conclusions as valid.

Separating out the message from the messenger (Trump) adds to the difficulty of deciding the facts and realities of the conflict to make judgments. All these factors make it difficult to discern if the Iran conflict meets all the just war principles.

The bottom line, as most would agree, is that Iran (and its proxies) are “bad actors” who do pose a threat to our allies and our nation. Years of negotiations have shown Iran to be untrustworthy.

History suggests that Iran is a very real problem. The lessons of our failures in Afghanistan and Iraq add an additional dimension to the practical effectiveness of our efforts.  The question is – is this the time to deal with Iran and can it be done in a just manner?

On balance, I believe the effort against Iran, to date, approaches but does not meet the principles for a just war. A perfect analysis, however, is not possible.  The media’s reporting of the conflict opens up too many different perspectives.  In addition, one’s own opinions about the military, war, and world affairs are factors in any conclusion.

War ‘Perception’

Recent comments by Cardinal Cupich of Chicago highlighted a unique and problematic perceptual aspect of the war.  He noted that the media and much of the population views the war as a “video game.”

“The moral crisis we are facing is not just a matter of the war itself, but also how we, the observers, view violence, for war now has become a spectator sport or strategy game.”

‘We become addicted to the “spectacle” of explosions…we become desensitized to the true costs of war….”

Cardinal Cupich brings to our attention an important factor affecting war awareness and perception. It can be put into the following context with regard to our population’s declining familiarity with the military.

Only 6% of the adult US population are veterans and approximately 1% of all Americans are currently serving. That means that a significant majority of the population has no experience with the realities of military life let alone the costs of military combat.

Likewise, military experience makes one more “in tune” with the happenings (causes and consequences) surrounding world conflicts.  This in-tune-ness is lacking in much of the population.

So far the conflict has been an air war.  We see mainly videos of explosions and wreckage from high altitudes. The casualties of the bombs are rarely displayed. Without that military background, an unrealistic, armchair, abstract perception of events noted by cardinal Cupich can occur.

In turn, any sense of a potential ground war can be lacking. The effects of war on ground troops are up close and personal. They suffer the most from being in ”harm’s way.” The administration has stated its intent to not “have boots on the ground.”  Yet past conflicts suggest a high potential for deploying ground troops.

I mention this because the realities of war are not a “video game” experience. Following just war principles cannot be an armchair exercise. Even though only a few of the population have to endure the “down and dirty” aspects of it, as a nation we all have a stake in it and should be rightly concerned.

The issue of combat actions being in line with just war principles is not only in terms of a valid justification of efforts. It is also about crafting war operations to meet just war criteria in a way that also protects our troops and the nation. Not always an easy task. The battlefield places priority and practical demands on the safety of our troops and our nation that just war considerations may not always address.

The old soldier in me is concerned about our efforts being successful in protecting our nation and in a manner that maximizes the safety and well-being of our troops that are in harm’s way.

The Christian in me is concerned that it be conducted by just war principles. In following the day-to-day conflict reporting, it has become an internal wrestling match as to concluding to what extent the war is just – a cross to bear.