I’m catching a bit of flack from
all sides regarding this
post, which was also my formal pastoral response to the invasion of Iran
for my congregation. On one side, I have had my patriotism called into
question, which is par for the course. On the other side, I am being admonished
for being too coy, not explicitly laying out if the Iran War is just or not. My
method tends toward the task of equipping people to do their own discernment,
because reaching a faithful conclusion tends to be more meaningful than simply
being told what a faithful conclusion is… but, now that the President finally gave his justification
for why we went to war, let’s pull the strings I offered you and tighten the
argument.
“Any
decision for war must be a mournful one."
That
was literally the title of the post. And it is decidedly not how we’ve gone to
war. It feels like we’ve done the opposite, that going to war with Iran was a
gleeful decision, one made to burnish a legacy, not a thing of last resort.
There have been no tears shed by the architects of this war, instead boasts and
bravado. We’ve went in as if it is an exhibition game or magician’s
distraction.
As for the seven questions that
ought to be asked before going to war, it almost feels like the planners of
this war were incurious and unwilling to ask the most basic of questions when
assessing if attacking Iran was just?
So, let’s engage with those seven questions
Christians have been asking about war for a good long time:
Have we
given all non-violent options a try before going to war?
I have heard that the negotiations
were stuck, that Iran wasn’t backing down on their demands. But, our response
was to, at least on two occasions, use negotiations as a way to track leaders within
the regime and then kills them. Part of why Iran is a little skeptical about
going to Pakistan to settle for peace is that they don’t want the finalizing
phone calls to lead to the death of still more high up leaders in their
government.
By what
authority are we going to war?
American Presidents are given
leeway to respond to attacks on this country and our interests abroad. Declaring
war, however, is a decision to be made by congress. This widens the net of
accountability, as well as focuses the country’s minds and hearts on the action
at hand. For that matter, only one ally, Israel, has joined us in either the
deliberation or the doing of this war. No international body has put its stamp
on stamping out the Iranian regime and its weapons of war.
The
President has, on occasion, couched this conflict as a response to Iran. A
response to Iran’s hardline negotiations, as well as a response to attacks on
America in the 1970s, the 1990s and the 2010s.
What is the
reason, the justification, for this military action?
Just watch the video, or compare
tweets by the President. There is a shifting rationale. We were attacking to: stop
Iran from having a short break out time for nuclear weapons, protect and/or
avenge the Iranian protestors who were murdered, push Iran to concessions at
the negotiation table, remove the threat posed by missile programs, dismantle
missiles that could make it to America, dismantle Iranian proxies by cutting
off the head, or simply doing what Jimmy Carter was unable to do so that America
is winning again.
What does
success look like in this war? Is that outcome likely?
My guess is that the President had
hoped for a repeat of Venezuela, a decapitating strike followed by replacing
the Ayatollah with two Iranian leaders who were more modern and moderate in
their outlook. Those two leaders were both assassinated (from reporting by our
ally Israel), and the Ayatollah’s son—whose whole family we’ve killed, whose
body we’ve scarred… this is a comic book origin story if I’ve ever seen one—is
now at least the figurehead of Iran.
Other examples of success include:
degrading missiles, degrading capacity to produce WMDs, and removing nuclear
material out of Iran.
How likely are each of these outcomes?
I mean, I remember day 2 we claimed we’d taken out 80% of Iran’s missiles, and
now over a month later we still seem to be after the remaining 20%, which
suggests to me that getting to these outcomes is more complicated than it
initially looked. That is, unless an Iran with 80% fewer missiles was the goal,
in which case what are we up to now?
Will it all
be worth it? Will the peace on the other side of this action be better than the
peace that existed before the action?
What will peace look like on the
other end?
-Pessimistically, either Iran “bombed back to the Stone Age” (or as of today eliminating
the Persian civilization completely… which sounds sort of Genocidal) or Iran receiving
sanctions relief, collecting billions in tolls from the Straight of Hormuz each
year that experts say could make Iran the 5th most powerful military
force within a couple of years, and the new Ayatollah will use the peace to prepare
for revenge against those who killed his family.
-Optimistically, Iran’s imperial ambitions are stymied and their proxies become
non-entities, because they are too busy rebuilding. Maybe when the bombs stop
falling reformers can take the streets and the repressive Basij will be too diminished
to respond with movement crushing force.
I
am decidedly a pessimist.
Will we
use more violence against Iran than they have used against us or those we are
protecting?
It was suggested to me that I’ve misread
Just War theory on this point. The question is not about equal use of violence,
but sufficient use of violence. That is, does the attacking force only use as
much violence as necessary to reach their goal?
What are we
doing to ensure that we aren’t hurting or killing civilians?
At the outset of this war, the
Secretary of Defense/War announced that this war is showcasing our new doctrine
of lethality. We’re moving from professionalism and protocols to a warriors
ethos that prioritizes death and destruction.
We hit a girls school by accident and killed
students. We destroyed a civilian bridge, killing 80 some civilians in the
process. Our ally has targeted desalination plants. The president has announced
that we will target civilian infrastructure, like Russia does in Ukraine, if there
isn’t a satisfactory offer of surrender by 8pm tonight.
So, a Just
War?
We did not pick up the sword
with sorrow in our hearts, but instead have done so with glee or, at best, shrugging
ambivalence. We tore up our nuclear agreement and then negotiated in bad faith.
The only authorization for this war is absence—congress refused to do their
job. Our justifications for entering this war are so many that it feels like we’re
Adam trying to cover a multitude of sins with a forest instead of a fig leaf. It
has been reported that even the people planning this war called the rosy
outcomes we’ve been fed unlikely; the Secretary of State even called them “bullshit,”
while still going along with the plan. The peace to come will likely be sorrow
and suffering for the Iranian people and the US a spent superpower. If the
bluster on Twitter coming out of the Oval Office is policy, we intend to hurt
and kill civilians. God have mercy.
I believe this war is unjust
through and through.
