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.
One the one hand we have the Pope’s warning that God does not listen to those who wage war. On the other, 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 which 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 one’s own; the question is whether he strtongly 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 with 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 goods of preventing the Iranian regime from attaining nuclear weapons, and 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. Should it be necessary to destroy bridges and electrical systems which are used not only for military but also for civilian purposes, the balance would certainly shift. However, considering the horrifying prospect of nuclear-armed terroristic fanatics with long range ballistic missiles, it seems clear that the proportionality criterion would be satisfied even then.
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 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 loath 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 victors’ 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 which implies that 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 which sponsor international terror.