The Iran conflict

V

vz71

Well-known member
An interesting take on the war in Iran came up the other day, and I thought it might be worth a deeper look.

Is it possible that the present war in Iran qualifies as a just war under Catholic theology?

Given my understanding of a just war, the conditions for just war are outlined in the Cathechism paragraph 2309.
  • 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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Click to expand...
So...lets check it out.
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
This is easily the weakest part of the argument. We know that Iran has been constantly building up it's military, including attempting to obtain nuclear arms, for decades. Their stated goal has been to wipe Israel off the map. We also know the deaths caused by the current Iranian regime of it's own people. I believe the count is in the tens of thousands.
Still, even though we know of the military buildup and the nuclear aspirations and the willingness to commit atrocities, we cannot know with certainty that the threat was lasting, grave, and certain. Well...we can know it was lasting and grave. Was it certain?
Between the US and Israel, the Iranian nuclear program was held back and unsuccessful for decades.
But...what of the people being killed in Iran? Sure the military assets may not be a grave threat, but do we ignore the slaughter of the Iranian people?

  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
For decades, negotiation has proven ineffective.

  • there must be serious prospects of success;
Not even a month in, and their military capabilities are pretty much wiped out. They have no Navy left, they have no Air Force left, and all that they have remaining are drones, some scattered ground troops, and a few missiles they fire at civilian commercial shipping vessels.

  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
At present, the attacks by Israel and the US against Iranian assets is nowhere near the scale of the brutality the regime showed it's own people.

I still remain on the fence here. Mainly because of the reactions the Pope appears to be having to the conflict. I admit the Pope knows more of this rule then I.
But...?

So any other thoughts?
 
Just off the top of my head, I want to say that it was a just cause for Israel (whose existence was threatened by Iran), but not for the US, to whom Iran posed no threat. Does just war doctrine allow allies, who are not themselves threatened, to fight on behalf of countries who are threatened?

As I understand it, Iran had expressed the wish to wipe Israel off the map, and they seemed to be developing nuclear capacity to do just that (Israel is very small).
 
HomeschoolDad said:
That's what I was thinking. US soil was invaded by the Japanese but not by the Germans.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

This kind of opens the definition of 'just war' further.
Apparently one can fight for an Ally.
And it would seem it is a just cause to fight for a perceived threat to the country that may or may not actually materialize.

Germany posed no immediate threat to the US. If I recall my history correctly, there was quite a bit of debate in this country of whether or not we should enter the war at all. It was not until the Japanese attacked that the majority opinion in the US turned.

At the very least, this gives an avenue for considering the indirect threat that Iran posed to the US.
Germany posed no direct threat, towards the US, but we perceived it best to cut it off before it could.
Therefore, perhaps, Iran poses no direct threat, but it is best to cut it off before it can.
 
vz71 said:
Exactly.

This kind of opens the definition of 'just war' further.
Apparently one can fight for an Ally.
And it would seem it is a just cause to fight for a perceived threat to the country that may or may not actually materialize.

Germany posed no immediate threat to the US. If I recall my history correctly, there was quite a bit of debate in this country of whether or not we should enter the war at all. It was not until the Japanese attacked that the majority opinion in the US turned.

At the very least, this gives an avenue for considering the indirect threat that Iran posed to the US.
Germany posed no direct threat, towards the US, but we perceived it best to cut it off before it could.
Therefore, perhaps, Iran poses no direct threat, but it is best to cut it off before it can.
Click to expand...
Just off the top of my head, I don't know if Aquinas considered the concept of countries having allies, and mutual defense agreements and interests with them. Indeed, in his time, even the concept of a "country", at least in some places, didn't really exist. Germany and Italy didn't exist in anything resembling their present forms until the 19th century, and on top of that, their borders were adjusted after World War II.

If one posits that a country may only fight defensive wars once the enemy has actually attacked that country's sovereign territory, that would be a very extreme position, and one that I seriously doubt the Church has traditionally taught. Keep in mind that the battle of Lepanto was fought by an alliance of Catholic states.
 
With regard to whether or not the aggressor country has attacked another country's territory, it must be borne in mind that as of the date of Germany's declaration of war against the U.S., that country had already torpedoed and sunk a U.S. Navy destroyer (the USS Reuben James), as well as a number of unarmed U.S.-flagged cargo ships.

Dxx
 
DaveBj said:
With regard to whether or not the aggressor country has attacked another country's territory, it must be borne in mind that as of the date of Germany's declaration of war against the U.S., that country had already torpedoed and sunk a U.S. Navy destroyer (the USS Reuben James), as well as a number of unarmed U.S.-flagged cargo ships.

Dxx
Click to expand...
I didn't think of that, thanks. Whether such incidents would rise to the level of a casus belli, I'm not going to aver one way or another, but it was certainly headed in that direction.
 
DaveBj said:
it must be borne in mind that as of the date of Germany's declaration of war against the U.S., that country had already torpedoed and sunk a U.S. Navy destroyer (the USS Reuben James), as well as a number of unarmed U.S.-flagged cargo ships.
Click to expand...
That is true.
But could this also be likened to the various terrorist groups Iran actively supported that took action against the US?

I realize that Germany acted on it's own at that time to attack US interests. But is economic and labor support such a different thing?
 
vz71 said:
That is true.
But could this also be likened to the various terrorist groups Iran actively supported that took action against the US?

I realize that Germany acted on it's own at that time to attack US interests. But is economic and labor support such a different thing?
Click to expand...

I cannot say. Thankfully, the war in Iran may be coming to an end soon, there are various talks and proposals for talks, and Trump is claiming at least some kind of victory for the US. He is now claiming that he has accomplished his goal of regime change, which he really hasn't, but Trump being Trump, perhaps it's best to let him think of it that way. At the end of WWII, we allowed Hirohito to surrender on terms that did not actually use that word (which was disgraceful in Japanese eyes), as well as to word the surrender document in such a way that it kind of made the US look like the bad guy. Small price to pay to end the war.
 
Iran, North Korea and all west-hating nations, are vassals of Red China. Mao Tse Dong established the destruction of the west as the goal of the Chinese Communist Party in 1949. Nothing has changed. Do we wait for the invasion before we take action?
What happened to prudence?
 
po18guy said:
Do we wait for the invasion before we take action?
What happened to prudence?
Click to expand...
Very good questions.

If we keep the 'just war' theory, then we do not wait for an invasion...assuming that the invasion to be predictable and imminent, and that diplomacy has not been successful.

As to prudence. I am afraid prudence has long given way to political expediency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top