Tuesday, April 7, 2026

Will “a whole civilization die tonight”?

From Twitter/X, on the president’s deranged post of this morning (which managed to top even his deranged Easter post):

Posted by at

126 comments:

  1. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 1:14 PM

    More proof, as if any was needed, that Trump is manifestly unfit for the position he holds.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MPApril 7, 2026 at 1:26 PM

    I think it is pretty clear that he's exaggerating. Yes, it would be better that he wouldn't do that, but this is rather easily predictable, and it is a bad idea to ignore this fact.

    Yet, I wish that (at least) this "he" in this previous paragraph would be clearly unambiguous...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 4:15 PM

      One day you and all the MAGA dolts will answer for your complicity before your God. I hope to be there.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 6:55 PM

      The United States bombed a school immediately after starting this war.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 6:58 PM

      Personally I’m looking forward to *your* judgement, if that’s the way we’re gonna play this…

      Delete
    4. BillyApril 8, 2026 at 5:17 AM

      They didn't bomb the school on purpose though, and you know that. To use an accident as the basis for interpreting this threat is silly.

      It's obviously an exaggeration from Trump. Still abhorrent and to be utterly condemned, but people pretend to believe he intended to eradicate the population or something.

      People are only pretending to believe that. They know clearly how Trump communicates.

      Lying, even about Trump, also must be answered for. You can call out Trump without resorting to being like him and not caring whether what you say is true or false.

      Delete
    5. EXEApril 8, 2026 at 6:39 AM

      Come on, MP. At some point it becomes wilful ignorance. Trump has followed up on many of the most heinous threats that he's made. MAGA types persistently engage in bizarre logical contortions to force his words to mean what they need them to mean. At some point, just take the man at his word instead of invoking bizarre interpretative hermeneutics in order to sane-wash the plain meaning of his words.

      Delete
    6. bmillerApril 8, 2026 at 8:25 AM

      It's interesting to see that some people can simultaneously hold that Trump must be taken at his word yet always chickens out.

      Delete
    7. EXEApril 9, 2026 at 4:27 AM

      He should be taken at his word because he's shown a complete moral willingness to do abhorrent things, and has done many of them:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeting_of_political_opponents_and_civil_society_under_the_second_Trump_administration

      He usually chickens out of actions that would carry actual, meaningful costs to him (usually in foreign policy as opposed to domestic). I do not believe these statements to be at odds. One can never be confident that Trump will not follow through on a threat, even one he would usually chicken out of, because stupidity, frustration, or bruised ego are ever at risk of causing him to stumble headlong into carrying it out. Yes, he is also a coward, but this cannot be relied on as some infallible safeguard against him going through with his threats, especially when the threats are this serious.

      Delete
    8. MPApril 9, 2026 at 9:09 AM

      Yes, there are people who seem to think both that Trump is a liar who does not ever tell the truth, and that we must believe everything he says interpreting it hyper-literally (one is tempted to say "as a computer", but that's a bit obsolete, for LLMs are not so literal-minded).

      And it is funny that here they (as "EXE") complain about my interpretation when it has proved to be completely correct. "MAGA types persistently engage in bizarre logical contortions to force his words to mean what they need them to mean." - and yet, somehow, despite all this that "MAGA type" was right and "anti-MAGA type" was wrong.

      And it was not hard to see that "a whole civilization will die tonight" is a hyperbole similar to "we will bomb them into the stone age". Hopefully, no one imagines that someone who says "we will bomb them into the stone age" actually expects that the ones being bombed will somehow forget how to use metal.

      And, yes, it is tempting to take their "At some point it becomes wilful ignorance.", and to decide that this is what they are doing themselves. But it seems to be more likely that the things that are happening are described in our host's blog post "Wrath and its daughters" (published about a decade ago).

      For example, "He creates fantasy enemies who are more evil in their character and their actions than any real world opponents are, and directs his rage at the latter while mistaking them for the former." or "Think of the person who is so filled with rage that he cannot get a coherent thought or line of argument out, but simply rants uncontrollably.".

      Delete
    9. bmillerApril 9, 2026 at 10:37 AM

      I see. We can never know if Trump will or will not carry out his threat. So since we can never know we are left believing he might or might not.

      A Trump supporter would actually agree that the threat then had the intended effect.

      Delete
    10. bmillerApril 9, 2026 at 7:00 PM

      MP,

      Thanks for reminding us of that post about wrath. He also reminds us that just as unreasoning rage is one extreme so to is lack of proportionate anger at wrong doers.

      We should think the same person couldn't have both vices at the same time, but as we can tell we would be wrong to think that:

      If deficiency in anger is common today, excess is of course no less common. Bizarrely, the defect and the excess sometimes exist in one and the same person. Consider that curious character familiar from modern political life, the militant pacifist. For even the worst murderers and dictators, he has nothing but compassion. Their sins, he assures us, are regrettable but understandable – a result of bad upbringing or weakness of will, an overreaction to social injustice or American imperialism, or what have you. In sharp contrast, for defenders of capital punishment or just war, the militant pacifist has nothing but venom. He attributes to them only the basest motives – bloodthirstiness, hatred, political calculation, war profiteering, and so forth.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 1:39 PM

    Time to invoke the 25th Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mack The MikeApril 7, 2026 at 2:21 PM

      Just impeach. It's both easier and more appropriate.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 8:40 PM

      It's actually harder, as it takes a process of the House making an accusation and voting (435 votes) on it, and sending it to the senate, who has to try it and give Trump time for a defense, and then vote on it (100 votes), whereas for the 25th, it's just a vote of the cabinet, 23 members. And at least in this case, not really available, as the tweet - however evil it was - is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

      Delete
    3. Mack The MikeApril 10, 2026 at 12:02 PM

      Please read the 25th amendment. To remove a President against his will for more than 21 days requires the Vice President, a majority of the cabinet, two thirds of the House, and two thirds of the Senate. Removal by impeachment only requires a majority in the House and two thirds of the Senate and is therefore MUCH easier.

      Delete
  4. DiogoApril 7, 2026 at 2:07 PM

    Dr. Feser, do you maintain what you said about the Iraq War in the past (links : http://web.archive.org/web/20071014120212/rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2006/03/paleoconservati.html; http://web.archive.org/web/20071014120217/rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2006/03/paleoconservati_1.html; http://web.archive.org/web/20071014120222/rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2006/03/paleoconservati_2.html) ? Do you still think that war was justified ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mack The MikeApril 7, 2026 at 2:17 PM

    Obviously carrying this out would be a war crime, but even making a credible threat to do this would be deeply immoral -- easily an impeachable offense. But is this statement to be taken seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 2:48 PM

    Professor
    You advised your readers to vote for Trump over Harris, primarily because Trump was more pro-life than Harris. I didn't follow your advice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 4:56 AM

      Someone had to win.
      It's still clear that it was better that Harris didn't.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 2:03 PM

      I disagree. Trump has done enormous damage to our country.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 8:42 PM

      Even if you think Trump has done enormous damage to our country, there's still a comparison to be made: how much damage would Harris have done? It's not 0. So, what's your estimate of her damage? Mine is "enormous".

      Delete
    4. BillyApril 9, 2026 at 4:03 AM

      What enormous damage has he done?

      No denying he has done damage, but enormous?

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 10, 2026 at 2:02 PM

      Billy, if you were, say, France, would you consider a long-term deal with the United States to be something you could count on? Before Trump, the answer would have been an easy yes.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 3:10 PM

    Careful Ed, you are sounding just like the Democrats that made the video saying soldiers can and should defy unlawful orders just a few weeks ago. The very ones this administration wanted to, and attempted to, prosecute to the fullest extent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 8:51 PM

      It was also imprudent for another reason: Trump was - to any rational person - at least likely to have been using hyperbole / exaggeration, with some likelihood above 0%. Assume for the sake of the argument that the likelihood was 55%. Now assume that he gives orders, not to "destroy a civilization", but to start bombing a carefully crafted set of targets that include militarily important bridges, militarily important power stations, and the like. The person carrying out ONE PART of those orders doesn't know how far the rest of the orders (going to other units) is going, he only has the part for his unit. If he judges (erroneously, under the hypothesis here) that "this is part of orders to 'destroy a civilization' ", and refuses to obey, he is actually disobeying lawful and reasonable orders, his judgment about the orders is a judgment based on partial information and a judgment call (that Trump was totally and literally serious in the threat) that was at least open to reasonable doubt. Which means his refusal to obey is both illegal and morally wrong.

      Sure, if Trump told the nuclear command to send 200 ICBMs to destroy their cities, they could refuse. But that's not what was going to happen under any scenario, and what would have happened had Iran and Trump not agreed on the 2-week plan is some kind of military response that most of the individual units tasked would be unable to say for sure "this is certainly immoral".

      Delete
    2. EXEApril 9, 2026 at 4:19 AM

      Ah, how convenient. An intellectual framework that makes the individual conscience's duty to refuse immoral orders impotent in the service of state power. "Of course you must disobey immoral orders, but you can't ever KNOW that an order is immoral, so you can't ACTUALLY disobey immoral orders in practice!"

      You're setting the bar of knowledge required for conscientious objection so high it's in space.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 9, 2026 at 11:57 AM

      You're setting the bar of knowledge required for conscientious objection so high it's in space.

      No. I am setting in in the right location. If Trump had told Hegseth: bomb them into the stone age, use nukes", then Hegseth had the needed information and obligation to refuse. If Trump had said "use conventional bombs, and bomb population centers to kill as many people as you can", Hegseth can and should refuse. (And if he didn't, at the next layer down, the general in charge should refuse. And at the next layer down, the divisional generals & admirals, and regimental commanders and ship captains, should refuse without further clarification on the morality and legality of such orders.) If Trump said to Hegseth "use conventional bombs, and bomb all the bridges, all the power plants, and anything remotely connected to modern civilizational needs", Hegseth should refuse as this kind of attack clearly and indisputably exceeds military needs.

      If Hegseth had not refused and passed on EXACTLY those same orders to the top general in charge, that general should refuse. But when that general starts handing out tactical unit tasks, and doesn't say anything about "boys, this is going to end their civilization", NOW you have room for real, reasonable doubt in the minds of the tactical units as to what their specific tasks do in the overall picture, and how to know whether their specific task is "in excess of any military need" when it is at the aggregate level that it is clear and indisputable, not at the individual task level. That is, at the tactical level, many units could not know with confidence that their individual tasking was at the service of "boys, other than population centers, destroy every portion of the infrastructure that supports civilization" and not rather at the service of "boys, we're going to take out the precise targets needed to put their military at a complete standstill, utterly unable to function at all, but leave their civilian infrastructure alone to the extent possible for that task." And if they can't tell which it is (at least some of them could not, if not all), then arguably they cannot legitimately refuse such orders.

      As homework, I suggest that you consider the moral problem in front of Germany's soldiers in early 1945: at some point, the top leadership knew "we cannot win, we should stop fighting". At some later moment, even the middle leadership like division generals knew "we cannot win, we should stop fighting." At some later point, even lower-down leadership, like colonels and majors, could tell. But the knowledge needed would NOT have been available, to every such leader, with sufficient confidence to ACT on that knowledge so as to morally and legitimately surrender their units, at the same moment - their individual pieces of information all varied, and came in piecemeal over time. Imagine the complex difficulty of various colonels and majors being given new orders to carry out (probably) useless tasks, and of their being RIGHTLY confident enough of the fact that "this order should be refused" to actually refuse. (For example, even after you know "we can't win the war", you can still affect the negotiation table by incremental changes, like where the division between the Eastern and Western Germany would land). If you haven't imagined how problematic and morally difficult that kind of decision is, you need to.

      Delete
  8. mdepieApril 7, 2026 at 4:15 PM

    I think most of the comments really are missing the point. There are two separate issues. I think Professor Feser has raised in his posts on this issue. The first is whether this war meets Just War criteria. I think in his view it does not, but if I understand him the predominant reason it does not is not that there is not a just cause. Most of the commentary on the Iran war centers on some version that Iran was a tyranny that oppressed its own people, was a direct threat to Israel and would be a threat to everyone else including the US. In the Catholic Tradition, and I think Dr Feser would agree The United States would be justified in terms of the just cause even if it was not immediately threatened coming to the aid of someone it could help such as the Israeli's or the oppressed people of Iran if this could be done without causing harms that outweigh the good. . For the sake of argument lets stipulate that is true. I think what is germane to this post is the other criteria of the just war are being in essence blown off and ignored.. I will not go over all of them but the criteria of being able to not inflict more damage than the good achieved, being able to be successful and being called by a rightful authority ( Congress in the US) are being ignored.. and Now we come to this deranged post..
    Trump appears to be referring to the destruction of the power system in Iran. The obvious problem with this is that when the power system fails, the water supply is done, sewage treatment is done, hospital power is done and the deaths to non combatants secondary to these effects are going to be incredibly large ( Not to mention in bombing this extensive the killing of civilians through the bombing itself. ) It is impossible to conceive of a military objective that would even remotely justify it. We were told after all that the Iranian military has been totally destroyed. It is far from obvious that this terror attack will dislodge the Iranian regime.. in fact it might unify the Islamic world ( and the non Islamic world against the United States and Israel when there are images of dying civilians with no food, no water and no electricity in hospitals. This kind of attack is so obviously not consistent with principles of proportionality and discrimination that it seems there is not much to talk about beyond that.. All the rest of it is immaterial.. Even if you could justify the war in general.. That particular tactic is both wicked and would be a foreign policy disaster for the United States and Israel.. not to mention the rest of the world. I pray he is not going to go through with it and I fully agree this is a case were the military would have a duty to refuse and if actually ordered it is an impeachable offense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 7:01 PM

      This is, if sensitively intended, profoundly incorrect. Iranian infrastructure is dominated by the mullacracy and is indispensable to its grip on power. In consequence, it would seem to be a legitimate target under the laws of war. If our goal is regime change, it would likely seem to be a proportionate target as well.

      Delete
    2. OAPoliceApril 8, 2026 at 7:36 AM

      The above is incorrect by Just War Theory--just because something is is indispensable to a state does not make it a legitimate target unless further conditions are met. The argument it is so is just Consequentialism.

      Delete
    3. BillyApril 9, 2026 at 4:15 AM

      Anon,

      What would actually be achieved by taking out energy infrastructure?

      it would make it even more difficult for the IRGC to communicate? But so what? They already can't do much. They are already broadly incapacitated. Destroying the energy infrastructure will cause extreme suffering to the civilians of Iran while achieving almost nothing militarily.

      Delete
  9. TonyApril 7, 2026 at 4:35 PM

    I don't believe that "a whole civilization will die tonight". For one thing, we don't have enough bombs to do it. For another, it doesn't accomplish his actual goals.

    But he was still wrong to say it. Period. He's wrong.

    The narrative that he's "deranged" is understandable, but it's not particularly well grounded. Trump has made wildly exaggerated claims for decades, in pursuit of goals that (sometimes) come through exaggerated claims. Our deal with Denmark on Greenland is an example: he was never actually interested in fighting a war there.

    Don't get me wrong: it IS possible he's deranged. But an obviously exaggerated bit of bloviation - even one this detestable - isn't particularly strong evidence of that. He can be vile without being deranged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerApril 8, 2026 at 9:56 AM

      I think that people forget that it's not the first time he's said something like that. He addressed the UN in 2017 and said this:

      "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."

      Was he using hyperbole then or did he really mean it? If one thinks he really meant it, and it clearly violates Just War theory, then wouldn't it have been better for Biden or Harris to have become president in 2024? If one thinks it was hyperbole and using that hyperbole indicates derangement, then again wouldn't Biden or Harris have been better choices since they did not engage in that type of hyperbole?

      Delete
    2. EXEApril 9, 2026 at 4:16 AM

      Waste of time to use logic in a case like this. In this specific instance, the "it was hyperbole" claim is not earnestly meant. It is part of an interpretative framework imposed onto Trump's comments in order to force them to mean what the interpreter needs them to mean.

      Delete
    3. BillyApril 9, 2026 at 4:19 AM

      bmiller,

      Why would detestable hyperbolic speech trump seeking to make abortion up to birth legal across the whole country?

      Harris and Biden had to lose for that exact reason, among many other things that are far worse than hyperbolic speech.

      Delete
    4. bmillerApril 9, 2026 at 9:59 AM

      Billy,

      I was trying to point out that voters who advocated for Trump to be elected in 2024 over Biden or Harris had already heard Trump say he would destroy a country way back in 2017. I was wondering why they would have advocated for his election knowing this but now when he says basically the same thing they want him removed.

      Do they now admit that they should have advocated for Harris or Biden rather than Trump in that election?

      Delete
    5. bmillerApril 9, 2026 at 10:00 AM

      It is part of an interpretative framework imposed onto Trump's comments in order to force them to mean what the interpreter needs them to mean.

      An interesting admission.

      Delete
    6. TonyApril 9, 2026 at 11:19 AM

      Waste of time to use logic in a case like this. In this specific instance, the "it was hyperbole" claim is not earnestly meant.

      So now YOU get to decide "what I earnestly meant"?! You get to peer inside my soul and tell me that I didn't earnestly mean what I wrote because it doesn't fit YOUR narrative? That's pretty rich.

      Please back up a bit. I led with the fact that we don't have enough bombs to do it. So likely Trump didn't mean it, not in literal terms. Deciding that "it was hyperbole" isn't really much of an interpretive stretch, even though it is interpreting his words rather than just reading them at face value. Would you be more satisfied if I had posed it as: "It is vastly more probable than not that Trump was using hyperbole."?

      But for a person like Trump, with his track record, insisting on always taking his words at face value is what is a "waste of time" and not logical - not when we know his character and that he tells stories, fibs, lies, and hyperbole as much as (or more than) he tells straight up truth. I can assure you that Iran's leaders (and other leaders around the globe) sift and consider his words and don't take them at face value without a mountain of analysis. Why can't we?

      Look, I don't disagree with the point that from a moral point of view, we CAN take the face value of his words and decide "this was an immoral threat to speak". Even if he didn't mean it literally, it was immoral. In fact, I even said that. Do you insist that NOT ONLY we all agree that the threat was immoral, but ALSO that everyone in the world ought to think he was speaking in earnest in deciding how to respond, no matter how irrational it was to take his words at face value knowing his character?

      Delete
    7. BillyApril 10, 2026 at 5:32 AM

      bmiller,

      Thank you. I misunderstood, sorry.

      Delete
  10. CJ WolfeApril 7, 2026 at 4:43 PM

    The Pope did speak out against it- unusual how immediate his reaction was. Also- how many other religious leaders spoke out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 8:01 PM

      The pope is courageous.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 12:46 PM

      The Pope appears to be a pacifist.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 2:01 PM

      You appear to be an ignoramus.

      Delete
  11. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 6:56 PM

    The irony that Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 9:42 PM

      It would be a lot more ironic if they had done so just before Trump had unleashed his "end civilization" rant. That would be an irony for the history books. Now it's just another case of "who blinked harder, Iran or Trump?" We won't know for quite a while, as it really depends on the further negotiations.

      Delete
  12. Miguel CervantesApril 7, 2026 at 6:58 PM

    Trump is deranged and not fit for any office. Whether the US military is able to carry out his threat is not the point - it only makes Trump's mental issues far graver than those of George III (who nobody thought was running England at the time). What next? Threaten to plough salt into Iranian fields and carry off Iran's people into bondage? Baby Capo's demented musings on his phone at three a.m. have no limits.

    Why are we surprised. He told us a few months ago, remember. "My mind is my only limit".

    ReplyDelete
  13. OAPoliceApril 8, 2026 at 3:06 AM

    Thank God meaningless but still utterly abhorrent. How would the world react if Russia or China made similar threats?

    Whatever one might think of the current Iranian regime (not great but really that much worse than some of the Gulf states?) Persia is one of the greatest civilisations to have been. Amongst many other achievements they had their own scholastic essence/existence tradition in the Illuminists and the disciplines of Mulla Sadra.

    A further concern is that the focus is now Trump’s increasingly unhinged rhetoric and not on the forces both US and Israeli which pushed for this war.

    ReplyDelete
  14. EXEApril 8, 2026 at 6:42 AM

    Thankfully for us all, it turned out to be TACO Tuesday. Unfortunately, it seems as if the fighting has not stopped, as missiles appear to still be raining down on both Tehran and Tel Aviv.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 7:52 AM

    I'm surprised by some of the commentary this morning. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean he didn't "mean it". Of course, if it did happen, this same crowd would be defending it and saying he did mean it and it's so great that he follows through on his word. Seemingly Iran believed the threat, because they came to the table.

    But the point is that the threat itself was immoral. I think we'd all agree that threat to civilian life or property is unacceptable. If someone threatened to blow up my house if I didn't buy their car, I'd be right to call the police. Yet our president (who I voted for, btw) can threaten the civilians of an entire country and many who support him will just brush it off, call it the art of the deal, say it's overselling like a business transaction even though it's war and not a business transaction, etc. Pretty amazing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 8:56 PM

      and many who support him will just brush it off

      Well, some here are saying both that it was hyperbole, and it was still wrong to threaten that. They aren't dismissing it.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 9, 2026 at 8:09 AM

      You're right. I've been on too many Daily Wire comments sections, probably. And need to touch grass, definitely.

      Delete
  16. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 8:01 AM

    Yes, the man who threatened an entire country is totally exonerated, but the people who called that out and said it's not a morally permissible thing to do are of course evil, traitors, hate America, etc. That's the pathology that we're stuck in with political commentary.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 3:36 PM

    1 of 2

    The "whole civilization will die tonight" is an instance of hyperbole. Quoting from Ref 1:

    Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜːrbəli/ ⓘ; adj. hyperbolic /ˌhaɪpərˈbɒlɪk/ ⓘ) is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis (literally 'growth'). In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally.

    What should be taken as factual are, guess what, facts. And the relevant fact is the evolution of Iran's stockpile of 20%- and 60%-enriched Uranium, called S20 and S60 and given in kg below:

    2 Nov 2020 (Ref 2)
    S20 = 0, S60 = 0

    26 Oct 2024 (Ref 3)
    S20 = 839, S60 = 182

    13 Jun 2025 (Ref 4)
    S20 = 184, S60 = 441

    This evolution is shown graphically in Ref 5.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 3:36 PM

    2 of 2

    Whoever cannot infer Iran's intent from this fact exhibits either complete ignorance of the only potential use of 60%-enriched uranium or a seriously deficient theory of mind (Ref 6), in which case he or she should seek professional help.

    Finally, why was it OK to allow N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons and is not OK to allow Iran to do the same? Because of two reasons:

    First, NK (or Pakistan, or India) are not governed by religious fanatics that believe they have a divine mandate to unleash an all-out war (which they believe will bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam or Mahdi, see Ref 7).

    Secondly, Seoul was in the 90's (and still is) within range of NK's massive artillery, so that it would have been wiped out if the U.S. had bombed NK's nuclear installations. BTW, replicating this state of affairs (wrt not only Israel but also, and mainly, the Arab Gulf countries) was the purpose of Iran's massive missile and drone production program.

    References

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

    2. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2020-51.pdf

    3. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/24/11/gov2024-61.pdf

    4. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2025-50.pdf

    5. https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/2039540603558506729/photo/1

    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

    7. https://mei.edu/publication/irans-revolutionary-guard-and-rising-cult-mahdism-missiles-and-militias-apocalypse/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 6:00 PM

      This is so totally irrelevant to the post, which is about it being unacceptable to target civilian infrastructure, or to even threaten to do so

      Delete
    2. EXEApril 9, 2026 at 4:13 AM

      "Everyone who doesn't perform the same hermeneutical mental gymnastics that I do is mentally deficient". Sure. Anything to avoid the plain meaning of Dear Leader's words.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 9, 2026 at 12:12 PM

      This is so totally irrelevant to the post, which is about it being unacceptable to target civilian infrastructure, or to even threaten to do so

      It is not irrelevant. The two acts you point to are both wrong, but wrong in importantly different ways. Targeting civilians as such or "destroying their civilization" is wrong on a much graver scale than is the threat.

      Especially so when the threat patently is implausible to some degree. Boxers regularly make claims like "I am going to kill him" and "I am going to destroy him" and although it is technically possible to kill the other boxer in the ring, everyone knows that they (almost always) don't mean it literally, and for that reason the threats are taken as a kind of performance art. While there is certainly a difference in global politics, there is also some distant similarity, with performance being part of the picture. Certainly negotiators at a peace conference know not to take the opening position of their opponents seriously, and nobody thinks it is absurd or heinous when they do this.

      Delete
  19. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 6:40 PM

    Iran is no more fanatic than the current leader of the Pentagon and other evangelicals whose only interest in Israel is the belief that what happens there triggers the end times. The only reason for Iran (or any country, given international law is dead) not to have nukes is because then they will be able to defend themselves, not subject to the whims of the military might of the West. Maintaining a Power disparity is all this is, not some morality play about keeping the crazies from the nukes ( a fact, if we were serious, we would say about ourselves and behave as such). All you real politick folk will incarnate as Scotus when it comes to defending genocidal mass casualty events but abandon said real politick the moment it makes sense for others. Just naked Power politics defended with whatever means you can. It is utterly unprincipled and unconvincing to anyone actually thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerApril 9, 2026 at 7:27 AM

      Anonymous April 8, 2026 at 6:40 PM,

      If I accept your assumption then I suppose that every country should have the right to acquire nuclear weapons to defend itself. Doesn't it then follow that every person then has the right to defend himself by arming themselves with lethal weapons?

      Gun control advocates only want to ban ordinary citizens from owning guns creating a power disparity between citizens and "officials". So if creating a power disparity is wrong then this is wrong also.

      In other words, if one holds that nuclear non-proliferation is morally wrong then mustn't one also hold that prohibiting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is equally wrong?

      Delete
    2. OAPoliceApril 9, 2026 at 8:38 AM

      It would be more succinct to say “The US does not want Iran to obtain unregulated WMDs for fear of it fighting with the other country in the Middle East with unregulated WMDs including nuclear devices.”

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 9, 2026 at 1:10 PM

      I’m a gun control advocate. One of many reasons ( Sandy Hook being the main) I don’t think Conservatives will ever be reasonable about gun control is that a manager acquaintance of mine, a conservative, in an argument about this, said outright every individual should have access to nukes. Your little ‘gotcha’ argument had no pull with him and indicates how far many of you will go. Now, as to my response to this, morally, I’m for nuclear non-proliferation but (1) if you’re going to real politick ( which you, specifically,- bmiller and your ‘just asking questions’ schtick do) real politick dictates the right of every country with the capacity to get them. Why? The international rules are not holding and only countries in possession of that deterrence are not getting relentlessly bombed. You want to draw some negative conclusion about this applying to every individual man - be upset with the reality you and your ilk vote for and support. (2) I’m also arguing that the morality argument is vacuous - crazies are in charge in the US just as much. What is happening geo-politically are Power battles and, obviously, if Iran had nukes they wouldn’t be under threat of annihilation like this.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 9, 2026 at 1:11 PM

      Correct. That would be more succinct and doesn’t entail any necessary moral judgment.

      Delete
    5. bmillerApril 9, 2026 at 4:57 PM

      Anonymous April 9, 2026 at 1:10 PM,

      I honestly don't understand part of what you said. Specifically:

      a manager acquaintance of mine, a conservative, in an argument about this, said outright every individual should have access to nukes. Your little ‘gotcha’ argument had no pull with him and indicates how far many of you will go.

      First as I understand it your manager was taking your own argument to its extreme logical conclusion. If a possible adversary has a nuke then you should be able to have one too. Second you claim I made a ‘gotcha’ argument that had no pull with him. What specifically was this argument that had "no pull" with him.

      Aside from that as I understand your position you are for nuclear non-proliferation except that all nations should be allowed to have nukes since some nations have nukes. You are also for gun control however in this case even though some citizens have guns no other citizens should have guns. Don't you believe that some of those citizens with guns are "crazies"?

      if Iran had nukes they wouldn’t be under threat of annihilation like this.

      If I substitute "innocent citizens" for Iran and "guns" for nukes you would sound like an average second amendment supporter.

      Delete
    6. TonyApril 9, 2026 at 9:08 PM

      if Iran had nukes they wouldn’t be under threat of annihilation like this.

      That's sort of true, but sort of not true or not entirely true. During the Cuban missile crisis, part of John F. Kennedy's threatening posture (to insist that Russia take its missiles out of Cuba) was that we had nuclear missile subs in the north Atlantic near Russia, and at least implicitly the threat was "we're a lot closer to Moscow than you are to Washington DC with operable missiles" (we knew the ones in Cuba were not yet in operation). The Russians blinked because Kennedy's threat was to obliterate Moscow, Leningrad, etc, if they didn't de-escalate from putting missiles into Cuba. Russia had nukes, but we had better placement. And that likely would be true of Iran for at least a decade, if they got nukes. Iran getting nukes would certainly change the equations, but not quite in an absolute manner like you suggest.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousApril 9, 2026 at 9:20 PM

      I’m not taking *your* use of that argument seriously. I’m stating flatly that I have used that argument against a 2nd amendment and he didn’t budge: he affirmed every individual person’s right to a nuke. That is the irony of you using that argument.

      I consider you a very disingenuous debater. Context could tell you how to read this. Simple: on the assumption of real politick when justifying this war, the same logic you all use to justify murdering civilians and destroying infrastructure, is the same logic to justify why Iran or any country would want nukes to prevent this.

      You thinking this means I think every individual person should’ve have nukes is spurious. I’m talking about nation-states, not individuals. I’m also talking about their motivations and reasons, not making a positive argument for proliferation.

      Furthermore, Nuclear non-proliferation doesn’t just depend on nuclear armed countries making vassals out of the rest of the world, under the threat of annihilation. If that is the case - as the US is flagrantly showing- any country with capacity *will* seek nuclear weapons as it will be the only deterrent. You can either address what I’m actually stating or restate this as some individual argument for every individual person to have nukes, which is ridiculous.

      If I agree that individuals should not have nukes, it is not now impossible to think or understand why nation states would want nukes or to argue and demonstrate why the state of things *encourages* them to pursue it. I consider you a disingenuous debater because you’re well capable of understanding this but you choose to construct silly contradictions like you can’t think on multiple levels.


      Delete
    8. bmillerApril 10, 2026 at 7:44 AM

      Anonymous April 9, 2026 at 9:20 PM,

      Thanks for adding that it was you who put an argument to your manager since that wasn't clear to me from your previous post. It's also clear to me that you misunderstood the question I asked regarding the second amendment. I used the phrase "lethal weapons" meaning ordinary side arms and rifles and you took it to mean nukes. So be clear, I am asking you to explain why you think only nations should be able to maintain a credible deterrent while individuals should not.

      It seems to me the reasons you are giving for why Iran should have nukes is more extreme than the ordinary second amendment supporter. The ordinary second amendment supporter will argue that when a murderer shows up at his door a policeman will not suddenly appear so it is up to you to protect yourself. They believe that letting possible murderers know you are armed will deter them from trying to murder you. This seems to be your essential argument why nations too should have the means to deter aggressors. However, second amendment supporters normally agree that criminals, especially those threatening to kill you and crazy people should not be allowed to possess arms. It seems you want to allow nukes indiscriminately.

      As a reminder there is no significant US political party that advocates Iran getting nukes. The UN is against it as are most if not all of Iran's neighbors.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousApril 10, 2026 at 9:28 AM

      Tony, there is no need to parse this. For goodness sakes. Yes, it is logically possible that what I’m saying isn’t ‘absolutely true.’ No, it’s not a necessary fact of existence.

      However, you’re going to tell me you’re going to hinge your argument on the Cuban missile crisis and not deal with the actual context and situation we’re in?

      Iran remains the largest (so- called) threat to Israel’s expansionism in the Middle East. If they had nukes ( like Israel does ), the calculus changes. Disputing this because of the Cuban missile crisis is silly man.

      The nukes do not need to reach the United States - it is what it means for Israel and Iran’s ability to defend themselves.

      The entire supposed moral case is that they’re jihadists and the moment they can, they will annihilate Israel ( and themselves in the process for the same messianic nonsense that our own Dept of War guy believes in - from a Christian perspective). A great story we tell ourselves - not how nation states work.

      Pakistan and Turkey have Nukes - it is a deterrent and despite large Muslim populations they’re not just hitching to annihilate themselves by threatening to nuke everyone. No, as I have already mentioned, there are just as much fanatics here as over there. The calculus for Power - immoral as it is- is that having the ability to also respond in kind to Israel ( and therefore our economic and other interests) is intolerable. The Gulf states reportedly egging this stuff on, as well are making the calculation that ‘taking Iran out’ allows them to fill the gap.

      So, the moment Iran can annihilate in response to - say, assassinating their entire leadership or destroying their civil infrastructure - is the moment the geo political calculus changes. It already changes based on their missile capabilities and control they can exert on the Strait.

      Add them being able to have a militarily proportionate OR disproportionate ( i.e escalate ) response to aggression would lessen their chances of being attacked like this - because of what they could do.

      This is the real politicking you all use to justify this war but become incredulous when reasoned from the perspective of someone else. Ridiculous

      Delete
    10. TonyApril 10, 2026 at 9:58 AM

      One of many reasons ( Sandy Hook being the main) I don’t think Conservatives will ever be reasonable about gun control is that a manager acquaintance of mine, a conservative...

      ...gave a dumb response.

      So, (a) you lump all "conservatives" in with that dumb response, and (b) you don't think there are any dumb arguments by gun-control advocates equally worthy of being ridiculed? Why?

      There are liberals who think that gun-control advocacy has gone too far. There are lots of middle-of-the-roaders who don't have a lot of angst about people having guns either way, and are broadly OK with the status quo. There are gun-rights advocates who are in favor of nuanced handling of the issue. There are even some who largely would prefer more gun control measures but think that the 2nd amendment properly interpreted doesn't allow them, so they think the 2nd amendment should be changed first.

      Delete
  20. Miguel CervantesApril 8, 2026 at 7:32 PM

    Well, just or not, the war seems to be ending in an Iranian victory that can't be masked by Trumpian bluster. None if his "war objectives" have been met. Iran now has control of the Gulf. The US would seem to be leaving its bases there, and Tel Aviv is scrambling to colonise as much as possible of another nation to its north before Iran's victory is confirmed. Trump should have stuck to helping Ukraine. Now there's a just war. Is Trump finally going to grow up and face his reality, or will he

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 9, 2026 at 8:56 PM

      You can;t wait 3 weeks to see how the negotiations play out to decide "Iran won"? If Iran manages a negotiation that puts them back at status quo ante in terms of allowed behavior, will they still have "won" after losing $200B worth of equipment, loss of uranium, and the lives of some pretty valuable people?

      Delete
    2. EXEApril 10, 2026 at 2:53 AM

      Ha! You actually believe there are negotiations taking place?

      Delete
  21. Miguel CervantesApril 8, 2026 at 7:33 PM

    Will Trump grow up and face his reality of defeat, or will he lose even occasional sanity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXEApril 9, 2026 at 4:11 AM

      Do you even have to ask? The man has had nearly eight decades to grow up, and has avoided it every time. Why would he start now?

      Delete
  22. MartinApril 9, 2026 at 12:41 AM

    Warned you, we tried. Listen, you did not. Now screwed we all will be.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The DeuceApril 9, 2026 at 7:10 AM

    No, a whole civilization did not die that night.

    Obviously it would've been a horrible crime against God and humanity had Trump actually done anything like literally end Persian civilization forever, but just as obviously nothing like that was ever on the table.

    Yeah, it was an awful thing to say, and even to use such thing as a threat is immoral, but after 10 years of seeing how he works, do we really have go into the sort of hair-on-fire hysterics that would be better reserved for an *actual* genocide or mass murder (like say what the mullahs did to protestors in January, or what Muslims are doing to Christians in Nigeria) rather than a purely rhetorical one?

    We know that Trump threatened Putin that he'd "bomb the shit out of Moscow" if he invaded Ukraine, and that he threatened Xi to do the same to Beijing should he invade Taiwan. Trump has said that they "believed him 10%" which he believed was sufficient to deter them. We KNOW he operates this way, with over-the-top bluster and threats, as a matter of course. We also know he has expressed a lot of sympathy for the Iranian people, so if we put on our thinking caps we should be able to figure out that he's not going to exterminate them.

    We can condemn the way this sort of bluster degrades our discourse and public sense of sanctity for human life without having an absolute 5-alarm meltdown as if a nuclear genocide is imminent and must be resisted as all costs.

    In fact, one of the worst aspects of Trump's bluster is that repeated maximal threats followed by minimal or no consequences undermines our credibility. But the same thing happens to the credibility of those who freak out maximally at everything he says.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerApril 9, 2026 at 10:32 AM

      The Deuce,

      Wouldn't it be more virtuous to tell our adversaries that we would never bomb their capitals? Wouldn't that give them the peace of mind to be nice to us?

      Delete
    2. TonyApril 9, 2026 at 12:15 PM

      Thank you, Deuce. Well said.

      Delete
    3. OAPoliceApril 10, 2026 at 1:34 PM

      @BarryMiller,

      One can and some occasions threaten military targets in one’s enemies’ capitals. But that doesn’t stop attacks on civilian populations or mass indiscriminate area bombing being wrong cf the bombing of Dresden and Coventry.

      The practical reason we do not do so is because it also pushes one up the escalation ladder and probably makes one’s own cities/civilian population/infrastructure a target,

      Delete
    4. bmillerApril 10, 2026 at 4:44 PM

      OAPolice,

      I don't disagree with anything you said, except it's bmiller rather than BarryMiller.

      I was trying to provoke a response to those who would disagree with The Deuce's analysis. Specifically I was hoping to provoke a discussion about the use of persuasive rhetoric during wartime. I would think the Scholastics would have written about this since Aristotle wrote extensively on rhetoric.

      Most everyone who thinks Trump was using hyperbole also thinks he did so immorally. I wonder if that is true. So I will take the position that his use of hyperbole was a moral use.

      The administration had exhausted all diplomatic methods with Iran before escalating to military methods. The US military targeted and achieved defeat of Iran's military with minimal civilian damage. At this stage Iran should have surrendered according to Just War theory since continued resistance would be worse than anything that could have been gained. The only way to persuade the remaining Iranian combatants then was to escalate the threat, in this case to threaten the civilization of which they are very proud.

      The aim was deterrence rather than to terrorize.
      The threat was clearly non-literal
      The threat was nevertheless credible due to the preceding military action
      It was necessary since no lesser methods were successful and indeed resulted in success.

      I realize that there are many points that could be disputed, but I am hoping the disputes involve the morality of using rhetoric during warfare.

      Delete
    5. OAPoliceApril 11, 2026 at 3:03 AM

      @Bmiller,

      My apologies, for some reason I confused you with the One Being fellow.

      My impression is that the rhetorical level of war also has its own escalation ladder with one of the consequences being that the actor's epistemic credibility goes down as it goes up. An issue then with Trump's statement is it immediately turns things up to ten and makes all other statements dubious.

      If Trump had said something like "We are going to blast the entire Iranian military to Hell in one night" or "We are going to open the Straits with fire and sword sweeping our enemies before us like dust" there wouldn't have been the same problem even though everyone would recognise it as a rhetorical overstatement.

      I disagree about defeating Iran's military though. Even given the size of the country and their current ballistic and rocket capacities let alone intelligence reports one can reasonably assume they have plenty of missile bases dug in across hard to reach areas. To them at least it looks plausible they can win *as in negotiate a better end to the war* simply by not losing and demonstrating their capacity to apply economic pressure on the world through the blockade of the Straits. As for continued resistance being worse than anything they could have gained that is disputable--at the back of their minds will be the "if we give you our enriched uranium and agree to further weapons restrictions in exchange for peace what's to stop you attacking us again in the future?" Other regional powers that gave up their WMDs to placate America i.e. Libya and Iraq, did not end happily for those powers or for the world.

      Delete
    6. bmillerApril 11, 2026 at 12:06 PM

      OAPolice,

      Thanks for your opinion on properly using rhetoric.

      I'd have to research to see the progression of Trump's tweet threats to see how they started out but of course we don't have access to his diplomatic communications. I think that those tweets were meant for a broader audience than just the Iranian diplomats and military. A lot of those tweets sound like the way WWE wrestlers trash talk during promos to their next match which I doubt St Thomas thought much about.

      Is it really much less worse to threaten to blast your enemy to Hell or to turn them to dust? "Death to America" to me those sound along the same lines. So it might be argued that Trump's threats were his attempt to talk to the Iranians in a style they would understand. As has been pointed out no one thinks the US is going to bomb someone to the stone ages and the only serious threat we have of ending their civilization is if we could deport our Woke crowd over there :-)

      I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion that the Iranians still have some capability left and some of that capability is able to sink oil tankers. Also they see that as leverage to negotiate the best deal for themselves. But those negotiations are a separate topic from the morality of rhetoric during wartime.

      Delete
    7. OAPoliceApril 12, 2026 at 3:50 AM

      I think this goes back to the issue of epistemic credibility. Part of the reason Iran isn't taken super seriously as a negotiator is that it engages in these grandiose threat which if taken literally are both morally horrific and materially impossible.

      In connection with this America has partially built its credibility and legitimacy as global hegemon* on this idea of a rule governed international order, of abiding and enforcing these global norms (crudely its allies agree to tolerate its power interests as long as they don't diverge from the former). In turning against the narrative line it is as if America is breaking a promise and delegitimizing its own global status.

      *Trump's ethos with America First was reasonably read as a move away from this, so if the US had became more isolationist that would have been understandable--the thing is it hasn't abandoned the war abroad stance whilst endangering the framework is used to legitimise itself.

      Delete
    8. bmillerApril 12, 2026 at 11:10 AM

      OAPolice,

      I'm not sure how discussing how America's changing relationship within the global order relates directly to wartime rhetoric so I will leave that to one side.

      You brought up a good point that Iran's rhetoric such as "Death to America" is not taken literally nor is it credible that they could seriously win a military fight with the US, especially without nukes. But as I understand it, the claim is that they haven't negotiated in good faith and that is why they are not trusted in negotiations. That may or may not be and it may or may not be true that the US cannot likewise be trusted.

      So the "Death to America" rhetoric seems to me be an indication to their own population and to the world that they mean business. The world should pay attention to them and this position if and when negotiations start. Perhaps staking out an outrageous starting position which makes anything less seem reasonable by comparison. So for instance if they agree to let ships pass through international waters again it will seem they have become reasonable when people would normally call such action piracy with calls to hang the perpetrators.

      Delete
  24. AnonymousApril 9, 2026 at 4:39 PM

    The Pentagon threatened the Vatican with an "Avignon Papacy" unless it sides with Trump. The threat came from Hegseth's Undersecretary for Policy:
    https://feminegra.com/the-pope-criticised-war-then-trumps-pentagon-sent-a-medieval-threat/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BillyApril 10, 2026 at 5:39 AM

      The Vatican has responded: "The account given by certain media outlets regarding this meeting does not correspond to the truth in any way.”

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 10, 2026 at 9:49 AM

      The problem with this "report" of a private meeting is that a so-called threat involving an "Avignon Papacy" is so outlandishly impossible to impose that the very threat would be laughable. Nobody would take it seriously, and indeed the Vatican diplomat in the meeting might well have broken out laughing at such an insane comment. the claim doesn't pass the BS sniff test.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 10, 2026 at 11:44 AM

      Elbridge Colby of the Pentagon, did meet with the papal ambassador, which in itself was highly unusual. He is Catholic and very pro-Trump. The Vatican is trying to smooth things over.

      "Holy See officials and observers, however, called the Pentagon meeting with Pierre highly unusual, and disclosure of the previously unreported meeting raised eyebrows in Vatican City."

      “I don’t recall similar [encounters],” said the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, undersecretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education. “What I can say is that the classic rules of diplomacy have been somewhat disrupted at this time. We’re witnessing meetings that would have once been conducted with very specific procedures and have instead become highly theatrical — I’m thinking of the one between Trump and Zelensky, at the White House. In this historical context, with these dynamics, it’s hard to say what’s usual, normal, fair, and what isn’t.”

      "There is no indication that Leo — or Pierre, for that matter, held their tongues following the Pentagon meeting. In fact, just the opposite.

      "In late February, the French-born Pierre attended a Mass in Minnesota, after which he joined senior U.S. cardinals in denouncing the administration’s immigration crackdown in the state."

      “I’m very proud, personally, to see our church, you know, be on the side of those who suffer,” Pierre said, according to the Associated Press, adding that Leo backed the U.S. bishops’ support of migrants.

      During that event, Massimo Faggioli, a religion scholar who attended it, said one topic was how U.S. bishops were becoming more aware of the “real nature of Trumpism” and that they could not continue to side with the Republican Party simply because of the party’s opposition to abortion."

      "He said he worried that there was undue pressure being placed on the Vatican during the meeting with Pierre at the Pentagon."

      “I don’t know what was said in the meeting, but the place where it happened — the Pentagon — is already a message in itself,” Faggioli said."

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 10, 2026 at 12:49 PM

      Unfortunately, the Ghibelline BS is still around. Those who refused the Church as the final arbiter on spiritual and moral issues in the late Middle Ages are around in the form of those conservatives like Vance and Hegseth. These representatives of Dark Enlightenment conservatism would very much like to subdue the Church to civil society, or even absorb it. The threat to the papacy would be to make it accountable to Washington as the Avignon papacy was to Paris.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 12, 2026 at 10:55 PM

      During that event, Massimo Faggioli, a religion scholar who attended it, said one topic was how U.S. bishops were becoming more aware of the “real nature of Trumpism” and that they could not continue to side with the Republican Party simply because of the party’s opposition to abortion."

      That's hilarious. If you can find 5 bishops who have publicly "sided with the Republican Party" in the last 10 years over anything OTHER than the narrow issue of abortion alone, that's all you'll find. A lot of bishops - when they speak on political matters - talk only on pro-Dem issues of programs for the poor, and in favor of unlimited immigration. Few even when talking about abortion explicitly praise the GOP as such for their stance. It is not entirely surprising that dissident Beans Faggioli would assert such claptrap, as his hold on Catholic teaching is rather tenuous, and his glasses need adjusting as he can't see current reality very well.

      adding that Leo backed the U.S. bishops’ support of migrants.

      Yeah, we know the bishops have supported illegal immigrants. It's one of the many reasons Catholics are ignoring bishops: the bishops aren't supporting Catholic teaching. And then there's the bishops who have taken government money for these purposes. As well as the USCCB itself. How many are indirectly complicit in the human trafficking mess?

      The threat to the papacy would be to make it accountable to Washington as the Avignon papacy was to Paris.

      Probably there are some that would like this. But they have no plan for doing it, nor even a dream of a plan that could be accomplished. A threat of their imposing an "Avignon Papacy" would be childishly, idiotically empty rhetoric, only slightly less ridiculous than a "Mars Papacy". You're conflating "they WISH they could force the pope to support them" with "they tried to force the pope to support them by threat", and there's no basis for it.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousApril 13, 2026 at 5:56 AM

      Commentators like this are the target of the new screeds by Donald Trump that (1) calls the Pope “weak on crime” and (2) AI generated pictures of himself as a Christ like figure. Attacking Bishops and calling them “Pro-Dems.” Haha. I bet you’re loving this. People who are more committed to their grievances and hatred than the Christian message. The overwhelming argument against Christianity has always been Christians and man, are many of you demonstrating why.

      Delete
  25. OAPoliceApril 10, 2026 at 4:18 AM

    Beyond the fact of Trump it looks like within hours of its being announced Israel has scuppered the ceasefire with Operation Eternal Darkness (at least they have a sense of humour) as well as *checks notes* bombing the main synagogue in Tehran.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerApril 10, 2026 at 4:55 PM

      OAPolice,

      Why would Israel bomb a synagogue?

      Delete
    2. El poni albinegroApril 10, 2026 at 10:28 PM

      Maybe Hamas / Hezbollah dug a base below it.

      Delete
    3. OAPoliceApril 11, 2026 at 2:40 AM

      @Bmiller

      Quite. There are many possible answers, none of them pleasant. The IDF took responsibility and claimed collateral damage, so at the very least a case of indiscriminate aim.

      The rabbi (Younes Hamami Lalehzar) of the synagogue in question, Rafi-Nia, condemned Netanyahu and claimed it demonstrated "the complete hatred of the Zionist regime towards the Jews of Iran." This was after the fact though so cannot be a cause.

      Delete
    4. bmillerApril 11, 2026 at 1:14 PM

      OAPolice,

      Right. There are a lot of possibilities and a lot of interested parties interested in persuading other interested parties.

      I have decided that it's better for me to not to excited about any "news"* reports especially during a war. I'm also skeptical about most recent history to the point I even wonder about
      ancient history written about by modern writers.

      Delete
  26. NormApril 12, 2026 at 12:30 AM

    https://www.undergroundthomist.org/is-the-war-in-iran-just

    Hey Prof, You should really check it out.

    I don't agree with the conclusion but I think it's the best attempt to justify the war in light of just war principles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormApril 12, 2026 at 9:28 PM

      Also the reason I think you should check it out, is so that you can be fair to your opponents on the war in general.

      Very few people who have put out a justification of the war based on just war theory so when someone like Dr B does, you should I think give it some attention.

      Delete
    2. bmillerApril 13, 2026 at 10:15 AM

      One thing I see missing from both sides of the argument is a respectful treatment of the arguments of the other side.

      The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan turned out badly and so I am strongly influenced to think the US should just stay out of wars overseas altogether period and in the Middle East in particular. But I also wonder if it is just to sit around and watch the world burn when one has the means to intervene.

      What seems confusing to me is that if there is such as thing as a Just War, then has there ever been one since the Incarnation? If so, which one and if not then is Just War practically unachievable and if so why even have such a theory? It's easy to imagine that this is the type of reasoning Francis used wrt capital punishment.

      I think it's fair for the side who opposes the Iranian war to contest things like the imminence of the threat, likelihood of success, likelihood of making things better etc, but they should also tell us if they think that it's OK for Iran to get nukes, fund Hamas and Hezbollah, develop missiles that can reach Europe and beyond, develop into the dominate regional power and so on.

      If they think it is not OK and diplomatic efforts have failed then what is the next step and at what point is war permitted? As I mentioned my inclination is to just to stay out of it all.

      Delete
  27. AnonymousApril 12, 2026 at 12:25 PM

    My conclusion is that Mr. Feser doesn't understand Trump's rhetoric. With Trump almost nothing is as it seems and this has been a characteristic feature of his speech throughout his entire presidency. Philosophers are inclined to pay attention to words and are thus easily misled in matters of politics. In politics, words are often intended to create smoke screens and confusion. They have the function to hide the real action from the public's eye. And only the action is what counts. Talleyrand famously said man had the power of speech for the purpose of being able to hide this thoughts. This is especially true in the domain of world politics. Theoretical exercises like Just War Theory are of no avail here, because Just War deliberations are far too transparant a kind of speech to be of any political use. Only the accumulation and diversity of interests can decide whether it is opportune to go to war or not. And even this isn't quite accurate. In reality the distinction between war and peace is a conceptual distinction which simplifies the complexities of reality. In reality we are always in a situation of war. Sometimes this war is more intense, sometimes it almost looks like peace, but it isn't peace. The struggle in pursuing one's interests goes on and on, and is a constant situation of bitter warfare: economic, cultural, financial warfare, warfare by secret services and undercover hit men, and finally by secret and open military means. We are in a more or less violent continuum that never stops. Peace is a fata morgana. The best thing we can have is a relative calm, but only for a while. Is Trump crazy? Does he say crazy things? Two distinct questions but neither of them is relevant. The only thing that matters is whether what he says or does works and produces a desired or at least favourable effect. Let's wait and see. We live in interesting times.

    ReplyDelete
  28. AnonymousApril 12, 2026 at 8:17 PM

    Here is Trump, unhinged as ever, on Pope Leo.
    https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116394704213456431

    ReplyDelete
  29. AnonymousApril 13, 2026 at 11:43 AM

    Trump on a tear about Pope Leo, who says he's "not afraid."

    "Pope Leo XIV in Algiers on Monday. President Trump attacked the pontiff in a social media post on Sunday night.Credit...Guglielmo Mangiapane/Reuters
    What We’re Covering Today
    Trump Attacks Pope: President Trump assailed Pope Leo XIV in a lengthy social media post as too liberal and “weak on crime” and posted an image that depicted himself as a Jesus-like figure, drawing swift criticism from across the political spectrum. Tensions have been mounting for months between the Vatican and the White House, with Leo’s admonishments of the war in Iran growing more pointed in recent days. Read more ›

    Image Deleted: Mr. Trump told reporters outside the Oval Office that the image of him as a robed figure touching the head of a man in a hospital gown was “supposed to be me as a doctor, making people better.” The president said he had removed the image from his social media account.

    Pope’s Response: Leo, at the start of a trip to Africa, told reporters he had “no fear of the Trump administration.” He added that he was not afraid of “speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do.” Read more ›

    ReplyDelete
  30. AnonymousApril 13, 2026 at 11:47 AM

    For one of the few times in my life, I agree with EWTN
    https://www.ewtnnews.com/world/us/trump-comments-on-pope-leo-americans-react

    ReplyDelete
  31. Miguel CervantesApril 13, 2026 at 8:06 PM

    The US is returning to its old anti-Catholic form. The Pentagon prays with a pastor who wants to ban Corpus Christi processions, loco Trump wants to cancel the Vicar of Christ because he believes Christ lives in the White House. Isn't it time for Catholics to ditch both conservatism and liberalism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 14, 2026 at 9:59 AM

      My guess from what I have gathered about the mentality of President Trump is that he isn't anti-Catholic at all. He simply cannot stand the current Pope because he views him as a woke coward pacifist and for that reason as basically opposed to his entire worldview. Trump deeply despises all kinds of sissies and most likely he doesn't view the Pope as a real manly man worth of listening to and who is able to confront the enemies of the West, in the first place Islam. He also disliked Pope Francis for similar reasons. Trump could make deals with John Paul II had he been Pope nowadays or with the more robust Pius Popes of the XIXth and XXth centuries. But he has nothing but contempt for what he thinks are nothing bunch of degenerate pro-LGBTQ sissies and pacifists. He views them as part of the problem of the decline of the West, not as in any part of the solution. If you don't fight for your nation and for preserving your religion and culture, you are not worthy of life itself. That's the philosophy of Trump.

      Delete
    2. bmillerApril 14, 2026 at 12:37 PM

      Anonymous April 14, 2026 at 9:59 AM,

      So you're saying that Trump thinks Pope Leo would have disapproved of the Reconquista?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 14, 2026 at 8:25 PM

      The Reconquista? Or the Spanish Armada against England?

      Delete
    4. Miguel CervantesApril 14, 2026 at 9:26 PM

      Trump, and Vance, reject the Church's duty to speak on moral questions in civil society. For them, civil society is the final arbiter. This is a militantly anti-Catholic position. The Pope, in insisting that he will continue to speak out, demonstrates manliness as well as evidence that the See of Rome will confirm the faith till the end of time. Pope Leo is obviously not concerned that he won't be invited to the twelve year old schoolgirl party at the White House because girlgang leader Trump had a hissy fit when someone said he wasn't perfect.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 15, 2026 at 6:00 AM

      I don't think that Trump and Vance deny the Church the possibility of speaking on moral questions in civil society. Catholics have freedom of religion in the US and the Pope is not denied the right of saying what he wants to say. The facts themselves of this conflict prove this. Another matter is, however, whether Trump agrees with what the Pope says, or finds it opportune or desirable that the Pope takes a position.

      The Pope in my opinion made two big errors.

      First, he didn't speak out at all about the terrorist regime in Tehran which killed many of its own civilians, has during the past decennia killed many Americans, and has spread terror by itself and its proxies through the entire region of the ME and sometimes beyond.

      Second, the Pope took a pacifist position on warfare in general, which is in direct contradiction to the catholic teachings on Natural Law and Just War. Independent of the question whether this war against Iran is a just war, this pacifist position is simply wrong. The Pope openly contradicts the teaching of his own Church by taking this position. So he painted himself into a corner from which it is difficult to escape. He even went so far as saying that all conflicts are wrong - n.b. not only all armed conflicts but all conflicts - which obviously includes his own conflict with Trump. The Pope is here in danger of descending into absurdity. Who can take his kind of pacificism and his non-conflict stance seriously?

      Delete
    6. bmillerApril 15, 2026 at 7:20 AM

      Anonymous April 14, 2026 at 8:25 PM,

      I was talking about the 700 year Reconquista by Spain. I thought about it recently since Spain has been in the news regarding their unilateral decision to allow EU legal status to 500,000 people who entered illegally. Many in Europe and the UK are complaining that they are losing their culture while the government officials and the church dismiss their concerns as racism. I wonder what bulletins our recent popes would have issued during the Reconquista. Would they have condemned the Spanish Christians battles against the Moors and demanded that only dialog can bring peace? Would they have condemned the expulsion of the Moors from Spain?

      Regarding Trump:
      I don't think Trump necessarily views the Pope as a sissy pacifist. I think he just reacted as he normally does to anyone criticizing him, by over the top vindictiveness. I think all his supporters see this behavior as his biggest flaw while he does not.

      Delete
    7. bmillerApril 15, 2026 at 12:20 PM

      Anonymous April 15, 2026 at 6:00 AM,

      I think it's also a mistake for the Pope to say things like "I have no fear of the Trump administration" when responding to criticisms from world leaders. It personalizes things in the same way that Trump critics complain about when Trump makes things personal.

      I think it would be better to have said something along the lines that "it's not the first time that the Church has been criticized for preaching peace and I suppose it won't be the last but it's my duty as Bishop of Rome to proclaim the Gospel message of peace rain or shine".

      If Pope Leo needs any more of my advice, he can reach me here in the comments. I understand that he's new at the job and so everyone should give him time to let him get his feet under himself.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousApril 15, 2026 at 3:07 PM

      The secular power the papacy during the time of the Papal States, around 750 to 1870, is totally different from the modern day papacy. Pope Julius II led troops into battle during the siege of Mirandola in 1511. We won't see that again.

      Delete
    9. Miguel CervantesApril 17, 2026 at 2:09 AM

      The Pope didn't need to speak on Iran because its actions over the last year did not cause this war, which is one of choice started by Washington and Tel Aviv and which is being justified by obvious and changing fibs. The Pope's "pacifism" does not change this matter. The Washington establishment does reject the Church's right and duty to speak on morality in civil society. Both Trump and Vance have said so, and told the Pope to mind his own business. But the universal principles governing civil society are the Pope's business because the Church is the final arbiter of these things. End of story. Whatever his faults, this Pope continues to assert the "indirect power" of the Church over civil society. Civil society must answer to this arbitrage, or give its reasons on a basis of moral principles. The US administration merely pouts and tells fibs. Time to accept reality. The field of universal principles is unipolar; there is only one superpower and it is not Washington.

      Delete
  32. AnonymousApril 14, 2026 at 1:40 PM

    "contempt for degenerate LGBTQ? "You haven't read about "Trump's Big Gay Government?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/style/gay-men-trump-administration-republicans.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 15, 2026 at 6:05 AM

      Trump doesn't object to powerful masculine gays, for he venerates power, not morality. But he despises sissies, and the Vatican LGBTQ clique is all sissy.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 15, 2026 at 2:45 PM

      Do you have inside knowledge about the Vatican LGBTQ clique? I am sure some of them have powerful positions in the Vatican. Scott Bessent, Trump's gay Sec of Treasury, looks way more sissy than masculine to me.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 16, 2026 at 6:33 AM

      The big picture is simply that the current Pope and Vatican don't show any resistance against those forces who want to destroy the West. No resistance to LGBTQ-ism, no resistance against globalism, no resistance to Islam and Islamism, no resistance against massive immigration but instead favouring it. The only thing they endlessly criticize is the West itself, they have seething hatred for it. And when a US President - who obviously has his own flaws and crazy things - finally stands up for the West, appreciates traditional religion (although he himself doesn't seem to be religious), turns against the most aggressive forms of totalitarian LGBTQ-ism and stands for religious liberty, helps Christians and Jews, and uses his military force against Islamists who want to destroy the West, then a campaign is launched by all the evil leftist forces and joined by the Vatican in an attempt to undo this Presidency. Western self-hatred is not only celebrated by these leftists, but it is actively encouraged by the Pope and the Vatican. They support a nihilistic agenda disguised as compassion and pacifism. The very basics of national existence, e.g. that a country should propagate traditional family life, be in control of its borders and be prepared to wipe out its enemies, are denied by them. They want to "include all". Well, good luck with that. It is a receipt for total destruction.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 16, 2026 at 12:22 PM

      Case in point - a MAGA person just stringing sentences together like an LLM prompt. The Pope and the Vatican are nihilists who hate the West more than the Left. Neither statement independently is true, nor is the ancillary assumption that the ‘Left’ hates the West but your garden variety Christian these days just spews out this nonsense. Donald Trump, one of the worst humans ever to hold high office is a man to make excuses for while this charity is not extended to the Pope, giving the mildest of pushback against wanton murder and destruction-consistent with the Christian message. Absolutely no place where this man has not corrupted. Disgusting.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 16, 2026 at 1:52 PM

      Yes, Pope Leo definitely hates the West and supports a nihilistic agenda.

      Delete
  33. AnonymousApril 16, 2026 at 5:23 AM

    It appears there’s nothing sacred, even for MAGA Catholics. Trump is their true vicar - and perhaps, more importantly, the shamelessness and cruelty he represents for them. It’s disgusting but unsurprising.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerApril 16, 2026 at 11:13 AM

      Anonymous April 16, 2026 at 5:23 AM,

      The Democrat platform promotes the intentional killing of innocent persons without restriction, ie abortion. Voting for a politician from such a platform is considered at least remote material cooperation of evil when the other choice does not advocate the same or similarly inherently evil acts. That act itself is an inherently evil act. If you voted for Kamala Harris it would have been a sin.

      That being said, I don't see any commenters obsessively posting that Kamala supporters are spawns of Satan. Maybe it's because they realize that ad hominem attacks are fallacies of irrelevance and distract from the substance of the discussion.

      And BTW, if nothing is sacred "even for MAGA Catholics" then how can you claim "Trump is their true vicar"?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 16, 2026 at 11:32 PM

      Your first statement is a lie but you know that. Two, Donald Trump was a democrat and only Machiavellian reasons has made supporting seem okay. How many abortions has Trump paid for? Acting like this is a moral man supporting you is laughable. Your argument is garbage- it is just as much a sin, if the guy you support actually gives no fcks and just mouthing agreement because he knows you’re fair weather and immoral actors. Good job - terrible people betting that you’re terrible and winning. It says more about you than anything else.

      Delete
    3. bmillerApril 17, 2026 at 3:19 PM

      Anonymous April 16, 2026 at 11:32 PM,

      Why do you say my first statement is a lie? The official Democrat platform has supported abortion since 1973. Every time you voted for a pro-choice Democrat over any pro-life candidate it's been a grave sin. If you voted for a candidate because she promoted abortion or you just don't care that your candidate will promote abortion that is worse.

      You'll get no argument out of me that Trump is a particularly moral man but since his opponent promised to increase mass murder and he didn't, as immoral as he is, his opponents were indisputably worse. It follows that, given the choices, people who voted for Trump did so morally while people who voted for Harris did so immorally.

      So can you please just stop with the ad hominems? Aside from the fact that these types of arguments are fallacious you are guilty of the offence you accuse your opponents of while they are not.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 18, 2026 at 12:09 AM

      “Mass murder.” Just nonsense on steroids. You are the ghouls supporting the arrest and jailing of women who have miscarriages. Show me you care about ‘mass murder’ when you’re not always finding escape hatches to justify the murder of other people or their civilization. Show me you give a sht about murder when killing almost two hundred little girls via bombing is not just a passing story, a mere data point. I guess their sacrifice was necessary so you can pat yourself on the back imagining that you saved millions of the unborn. Puerile.

      Newsflash, guy. This is not how this works. Whatever the metaphysics of fetuses, deliberately creating a more dangerous world for everyone doesn’t lessen Abortions. More women just die. If you actually want to reduce Abortions, the solution is multifaceted and sociological: a better society, where child rearing is not a horrific burden and resources are actually available to would be parents. It would mean less ruthless Capitalism, and *gasp* social safety nets.

      Not this “lesser evil” foolishness, and fictional binary choice: whether a candidate is for or against Abortion. The answer to that question is not some litmus test for evil, much less a reason to vote for a world, historical awful human, confirmed by decades of his behavior on the public record - and his prior presidency.

      Delete
    5. bmillerApril 18, 2026 at 5:14 PM

      Anonymous April 18, 2026 at 12:09 AM,

      Have a nice day.

      Delete
  34. Paul D. Van PeltApril 27, 2026 at 12:00 PM

    Gloomy, Professor.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)