This is sheer sophistry. There is no plausible case for the claim that the U.S. and Iran have already been at war for decades. And even if there were such a case, it would support Iran’s cause as much as (or possibly even more than) it supports the U.S. cause.
What is a war?
Since those
who make the claim play fast and loose with the concept of “war,” it will be
useful to begin with a definition. Since
I approach these issues through the Thomistic just war tradition, I would
advocate the definition common among writers in that tradition. But as it happens, there is nothing
distinctively Thomistic about that definition, and I think it corresponds
closely to how pretty much everyone usually understands what a war is (except some
advocates of the current war, who for political reasons suddenly favor a more
expansive definition). Here’s how the
Catholic moral theologians Fr. John McHugh and Fr. Charles Callan define war in
their pre-Vatican II manual Moral
Theology: A Complete Course, Vol. I:
War is defined as a state of conflict between two or more
sovereign nations carried on by force of arms.
(a) It is a state
of conflict, and so differs from passing conflicts, such as battles,
skirmishes, campaigns…
(b) War is between sovereign
nations… war is made by nation against nation, not against particular
individuals or groups of individuals within a nation.
(c) It is carried on by
force of arms, and so differs from trade war, rivalry in preparedness for
war, embargo, blockade, breach of diplomatic relations, etc. (p. 557 of the 1958 edition)
Similar
definitions can be found in other such works of the day. For example, Fr. Austin Fagothey, in his
ethics manual Right and Reason,
writes:
We may define [war] as a
condition of active armed hostility between two or more sovereign states…
commercial rivalry and diplomatic tilts are not strictly war, nor is the
so-called “cold war.” War is active hostility; mere preparation for
future aggression or defense is not war, but there must be actual fighting,
though it may be intermittent. (p. 560 of the second edition)
Note that on
these definition, for two nations to be at war, it is not sufficient that there
be bad diplomatic relations between them, that they inflict economic harms on
one another, that each side makes preparations for war, or even that there be
occasional isolated battles or skirmishes between their respective armed
forces. There has to be a condition of sustained armed conflict between them.
This fits
actual ordinary usage. Consider that
throughout most of the twentieth century, the United States and the Soviet
Union were enemies. Diplomatic relations
were bad; we imposed economic sanctions on the Soviets after their invasion of
Afghanistan, and blockaded their ally Cuba during the missile crisis; we aided
their enemies in Afghanistan, and the Soviets aided our enemies in Korea and
North Vietnam; both sides prepared for possible direct conventional and nuclear
confrontation; and there were even occasional skirmishes between U.S. and
Soviet forces (as when the U.S. joined in the failed Allied effort to crush the
nascent Bolshevik government beginning in 1918, and when American and Russian
pilots clashed during the Korean war). Nevertheless,
we were not literally at war with the Soviet Union. (When Richard Nixon spoke
of achieving “victory without war” with the Soviets, nobody feigned
bafflement or said “What? We’ve been at war with them for decades!”)
Or consider
that relations between the U.S. and Japan were tense for decades before World
War II. There were longstanding Japanese
complaints about American treatment of Japanese immigrants, and longstanding American
complaints about Japanese expansionist policy in Asia and the Pacific. In 1937, the Japanese sank a U.S. Navy
gunboat, killing several of those onboard.
In the years before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. imposed an oil embargo
against Japan, cut iron and steel exports, and froze Japanese assets. America also supported and armed China in its
conflict with Japan, and both sides planned for a possible war between the U.S.
and Japan. Still, we were not actually
at war with Japan until war was declared after the Pearl Harbor attack. No one at the time tried to mount an argument
to the effect that such a declaration was unnecessary insofar as the two
countries had already been at war for years.
Then there
are examples like the longstanding tense relationship between the U.S. and
China, which involved actual combat between American and Chinese troops during
the Korean War, and Chinese support for North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. There is the tension that has persisted
between the U.S. and North Korea ever since the end of the Korean War, which
has included occasional skirmishes.
These facts notwithstanding, we have not been at war with North Korea
since 1953, and have never been at war with China.
Other
examples could be given, but these suffice to make the point. The relationship between the U.S. and Iran
has for decades been, at worst, analogous to the tense relationships that
existed between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during most of the twentieth century,
between the U.S. and Japan prior to World War II, and between the U.S. and
countries like China and North Korea for the last several decades. But those cases did not amount to actual
war. Hence, neither did the U.S.’s tense
relationship with Iran over the last several decades amount to a state of war.
Selective history
The reason
the war’s defenders say that it has been going on for 47 years is that they
claim it began in 1979 with the Iran hostage crisis, during which 66 Americans
were held captive for fifteen months. They
also cite a number of events that occurred between that time and now, such as
the 1983 bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American servicemen, the 1996 Khobar
Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. servicemen, and insurgent IED attacks during
the Iraq war which killed hundreds of American soldiers, all attributed to
groups with ties to Iran.
One problem
with this narrative is that – as the parallels with the examples involving the
Soviet Union, Japan, China and North Korea show – the occurrence of isolated
skirmishes, or even sporadic more serious military engagements between U.S.
forces and Iranian proxies over the decades, simply do not entail that the two
countries have been at war all that time.
We were at war with Soviet proxies North Korea and North Vietnam, and
there was some direct military engagement between U.S. forces and Russian and
Chinese forces in Korea. All the same,
we were never actually at war with the Soviets or the Chinese. Japanese and American naval forces clashed in
1937. But we were not actually at war
before 1941. By the same token, the fact
that there have, over the decades, been engagements between U.S. forces and
Iranian proxies simply does not entail that we were literally at war with Iran during
those decades.
A second
problem is that the narrative leaves out crucial historical details that clearly
point away from the conclusion that
the U.S. and Iran have been at war since 1979.
Start with the hostage crisis, which ended when the U.S. and Iran signed
the Algiers Accords on January 19, 1981.
Iran agreed to free the hostages; the U.S. agreed, among other things,
not to intervene in Iranian affairs; and both countries agreed to settle
disputes by appeal to a tribunal.
Obviously, then, the U.S. took the particular crisis that began in 1979 to
have ended with the signing of the accords, and did not regard itself as being
at war with Iran. Moreover, the Reagan
administration sold weapons to Iran during the 1980s (as was revealed at the
time of the Iran-Contra scandal). And it
is hardly plausible to suggest that the U.S. was selling arms to a country it
regarded itself as at war with.
In the
immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Iranians expressed sympathy with the U.S., provided
some intelligence assistance, and sought better relations with
America. This goodwill between the two countries
didn’t last, of course, but it is another illustration of the fact that they
did not then see themselves as in a state of war. Then there is the fact that the U.S. and Iran
agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during the Obama
administration, which restricted Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful purposes
and relaxed U.S. sanctions on Iran.
While the agreement is no longer in force, it was not Iran that ended
it, but the United States, during the first Trump administration. Whatever one thinks of the agreement, it
further underlines the fact that the two countries were not in a state of war
with one another. You don’t agree to
limit your weapons options, or to relax damaging economic sanctions, with a
country you are literally at war with.
A third
problem with the narrative according to which the U.S. and Iran have been at
war for 47 years is that it conveniently leaves out facts that would arguably make
the U.S. rather than Iran the
aggressor in this purported decades-long war.
For one thing, it is arbitrary to begin the story in 1979. The regime that the Islamist revolutionaries
overthrew that year was one that had been installed in 1953 during a military
coup backed by the United States. From the
Iranian point of view, then, it was the U.S. that first aggressed against Iran,
and the events of 1979 were a late response to this aggression. Then there is the fact that in the early
1980s, the U.S. began to support Iraq in its war with Iran (playing both sides,
since it was also selling arms to Iran), despite the fact that Iraq had been
the aggressor.
Of course, this does not mean that the U.S. and Iran really have been at war since 1953, and it does not mean that Iranian support for proxy attacks on U.S. forces, or pursuit of nuclear weapons (if Iran ever decided to pursue them), are justifiable. The point is rather that if you are going to play the sorts of games defenders of the current war play – namely, selectively pointing to offenses from the distant past to rationalize current aggression – then Iran could play them too. That’s one more reason not to engage in such sophistry.
Further
reading:
The
U.S. war on Iran is manifestly unjust
America’s conflict in
Iran is not a just war
Does
just war doctrine require moral certainty?
Misunderstanding
the “just cause” condition of just war doctrine
"We have always been at war with Eastasia."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you all know the quote.
I would argue that all those other acts of animosity that nations engage in; like trade sanctions, and minor skirmishes, are done IN LIEU OF WAR as evidenced by their limited nature, and engaging only in such acts is therefore evidence that a war in not in progress.
Too true. It's unbelievable that experts have been conscripted to defend the latest US war of choice on the grounds of Catholic just war teaching. How many coups d'etat has the United States initiated? Just think of the valiant President Diem of Vietnam, murdered in a CIA-sponsored coup. How it turns on its "friends", like Saddam Hussein, who the US backed to the hilt during the long Iraq-Iran war.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many opportunities for a real "operation just cause": the Christians in the Holy Land, Lebanon and Syria; Ukraine, which wants so much to be part of the Christian West; Christians in Mozambique, Nigeria and Mali. And what about the great bastion of the Christian West in the Western Pacific, the Philippines, which is left almost helpless in the face of decades-long Chinese attacks?
As is typical, religious language is used to sanctify the interests of power - in other words, to give the political elites an excuse to do the things they already wanted to do anyway.
DeleteI think it’s far more typical as of the last two hundred years to see rational/scientific language being used to sanctify the interests of power and to dominate others than religious language. See: colonialism or NGO rhetoric.
DeleteLast fifty years, maybe. But I disagree about the last two centuries in general. Crusader rhetoric was used to legitimize 19th century colonialism in the Middle East, and the German army's slogan in both World Wars was "Gott Mit Uns". Colonialism in general might not have been explicitly religious in nature, but often drew upon ideas nursed in the womb of Christian thinking - see the excuse of the "civilizing mission", which usually included converting the natives to Christianity, as a justification for what was done. Sure, "scientific" racism also existed, but at most it was simply another force existing alongside Christianity as justification for what the West did to maintain its wealth and power.
DeleteAs regards the use of "NGO Rhetoric", to an extent I actually agree with you. It might surprise you to learn this, but socialists generally hate liberals, usually for failing to properly care for the rights of the working class. In other words, for talking a good game about liberty and equality, but actually upholding unjust structures of power and opposing any efforts to change them. Much of the behavior of liberal First World countries towards the Global South fits this behavior. The hypocrisy is sickening sometimes, but I think that the solution is to actually carry out the principles for real, rather than to abandon them.
@Exe, what major Christian leader has claimed that Christianity should retake the Holy Land in the last century? I mean the look on people’s faces would be hilarious but nobody has done it.
DeleteMoreover the plight of Christians in the Holy Land and Lebanon should be highlighted. Not because their lives should be considered more precious than that of the Muslim and Druze inhabitants of those lands, but, in addition to their own worth, because a certain brand of American Right type who refuses to believe in atrocities committed against the latter might pay more attention in the case of the former.
Oh, one thing I forgot to mention. Pete Hegseth has a Jerusalem Cross tattoo, and speaks proudly of it, and wrote a book explicitly calling for "Christian Warriors" to take up the sword and defend the nation. In other words, an explicit use of Christianity as justification for war. In addition, a large number of reports within the military indicate that at least some units are being explicitly told by their commanders that the war in Iran is part of God's plan to bring about Armageddon and bring the Second Coming of Christ. One officer even complained that he was told by a commander that Donald Trump was anointed by Jesus. I will grant that these claims are unconfirmed, but many such complaints have been sent to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, so they're not likely to all be fake. The fact that the claim "apocalyptic Dispensationalist theology is being fed directly to American soldiers by the command chain" is at all plausible ought to terrify everyone. They really ought to have excluded the Book of Revelation from the canon...
DeleteOAPolice:
Delete"what major Christian leader has claimed that Christianity should retake the Holy Land in the last century? I mean the look on people’s faces would be hilarious but nobody has done it."
The British. Allenby's invasion of Ottoman Palestine in 1917 was accompanied by a propaganda blitz directly and unambiguously comparing it to a Crusade. There was even a cover of Punch magazine (December 19th, 1917 to be precise) depicting Richard the Lionheart gazing over Jerusalem with a text caption that said "THE LAST CRUSADE" and "My dream comes true". Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Does that count? Also, a relevant source:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002200940103600104
In addition, the 19th century French, in particular, loved to draw parallels between themselves and the Crusaders as a way to morally justify their adventures in the Islamic world. The 1830 invasion of Algeria was framed as a holy war. The following quotes are all taken from:
https://shs.hal.science/file/index/docid/397835/filename/index.html#title_03
"The myth of liberation having lost much of its credibility, the colonial discourse fed on the religious imagery inherited from the Crusades. In this vision, Islam was seen as a permanent danger for Christianity and Europe. The image of the Saracen burning harvests, killing men and kidnapping women, was kept alive in order to assert that the conquest of Algeria was a factor in the security of Europe and Christendom, haunted by the Turkish peril. Held at bay in Eastern Europe by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, this peril might well awaken in the south and threaten the western Mediterranean. The occupation of Algeria protected Europe from an Islam perceived as an enemy of reason and humanism. A publicist in 1841 wrote: ""The final days of the Islamic movement have come; our century is doubtless destined to watch it leave the shores of Europe, not only of that old Europe which it once invaded and so long threatened, but of that new and greater Europe which has grown up wherever the former Europe has borne the Cross. Attacked from all sides, the Crescent is breaking up and fading away.""
[...]
"Finally, the colonialist rhetoric had a religious dimension, despite its apparent secular character. It referred obsessively to a destructive Islam and a civilizing Christianity. The Muslim was a nomad taking no interest in stable goods and real estate; he lived as a predator, he degraded the environment. His nomadic way of life gave him no cause to invest in work, he was the very opposite of the Christian who was sedentarized, a builder of villages centered around the Church. The colon invested in the earth, to which he gave value through his work and his sweat, planting trees, fertilizing and watering dry lands, installing irrigation-systems and so forth. The difference between these two ways of life, in the colonial rhetoric, lay in religion."
This is hardly the only example, either. French involvement in the Crimean War was occasioned by the pretense that they were protectors of Levantine Christians, a title Russia disputed.
Wouldn't this cut both ways?
ReplyDeleteIf Iran has not committed sustained armed conflict against the US, formally declared or not, then has the US done so against Iran?
What distinguishes "isolated" from "sustained"? Is the US even at war with Iran right now? Nothing has been declared and there are only isolated skirmishes in the Strait. Surely, Iran attacking civilian vessels in the Strait isn't armed conflict between nations and surely it's not acts of war to defend civilian vessels against Iranian attacks in the Strait, is it?
I would like to hear what exactly Just War Theory does with activities like state-backed piracy. Seems like a tricky subject.
DeleteI reckon that the current Iran/US hostility meets all the 3 conditions above, and can be defined as a "war" right now:
Delete(a) it is a "state" of conflict. Both Iran and US have non-negligible military forces permanently deployed for action, and it's been the case for more than a month now.
(b) it is between "sovereign nations". Iran and US are attacking each other's targets, too, in addition to third-party civilian vessels. Iranian official military forces have fired against US vessels. US official military forces have fired against multiple Iranian targets. There's no "plausible deniability", nor "terrorists", nor "proxies".
(c) it is definitely "carried on by force of arms".
I second Thurible's comment. From what has been discussed so far wrt Just War Theory it seems it only deals with declared wars of nation states. Piracy doesn't seem to be part of that.
Delete@bmiller
DeleteI would be particularly curious if there's an upper limit to anti-piracy activities directed against ships loyal to a particular state before you need to just call it war and subject it to more careful moral scrutiny.
I've read that Iran insists that its territorial waters include the entire Strait of Hormuz passage, so according to them they are just regulating their own waters. Of course the US argues it is enforcing international law.
DeleteIn the past, there were privateers that were authorized by nations to capture or sink ships of hostile nations and not necessarily during declared war. So sort of pirates. It seems the practice started in the Middle Ages so maybe it was addressed by the Scholastics.
that Iran insists that its territorial waters include the entire Strait of Hormuz passage, so according to them they are just regulating their own waters.
DeleteOf course, that's highly self-serving BS.
Under international law, specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a country can claim full sovereignty over a territorial sea extending up to 12 nautical miles (nm) from its coastline. That's it's "territorial" waters. The there's Contiguous Zone: A further 12 miles beyond the territorial sea (total 24 from shore) where a state can enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws.
But that's complicated by the situation where the waters are bounded by countries on the other side that have equal claims, (in this case, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE). The narrowest point of the straight is 35 miles, so UAE (from the opposite shore) has as much claim over the middle 12 miles as Iran does.
And then there's the doctrine of innocent passage: Foreign vessels are allowed to pass through a country's territorial sea (12 nm) as long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state.
there were privateers that were authorized by nations to capture or sink ships of hostile nations and not necessarily during declared war. So sort of pirates. It seems the practice started in the Middle Ages so maybe it was addressed by the Scholastics.
I don't know what the Scholastics said. I can't see how, outside of war, delegating the piracy to a third party is any less wrong than doing it through your own navy. Taking the ships of civilians or another country's navy is considered "acts of war" that tend to (if done by policy and with persistence) be just cause for the other side to take up war. If you don't have just cause to go to war, you don't have just cause to engage a contractor to perform acts of war either.
You are correct that retrofitting a “47-year war” label to sanitize a new strike is weak sophistry and bad precedent. But the counter-error is equally dangerous: pretending the relationship was ever normal interstate peace merely because it doesn't reach a defined level of hostilities. Iran and the United States have lived in a persistent liminal condition for decades: continuous lethal and non-lethal pressure short of declared, sustained conventional war. The paradox for conventionally strong nations is that military strength invites gray zone activities that damages their ability to protect their interests. Clausewitz famously said that war is politics with other means. Our adversaries have reversed this: politics is war with other means. We might believe we are in a state of peace, but they think otherwise.
ReplyDeleteWashington and Tehran co-operated in intelligence-sharing after 9/11 and into the lead up of the US invasion of Afghanistan, only for the diplomatic climate to freeze once more after Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech. Iran had a vested interest in stopping the Taliban as a vast amount of the heroine entering their country was coming from Afghan territories.
ReplyDeleteThanks! People saying we've have been at war with Iran for decades make my eyes roll.
ReplyDeleteAnother timely question is when does a war end? Trump is claiming that because of the ceasefire he doesn't need approval from congress, but after a couple weeks, we're back to engaging in force of arms.
In just war theory, is there a concept prescription when a right to prosecute a war is lost due to time? In an attempt to steel man the pro-war faction, could they argue that we have a right to go to war to prosecute a war based on events 10, 20, 30 years ago? I don't know what facts they would appeal to for that argument, but is it an argument that could be made in principle (ie in iure)?
James, broadly, I agree with your point.
Delete<>could they argue that we have a right to go to war to prosecute a war based on events 10, 20, 30 years ago?
Generally: no.
Now the nuances: it depends. The devil is in the details. Let me give an example first: If A "beats" B in a war and takes over B's territory as an oppressor, there is not only the 20-year-ago war itself, but an ongoing evil being sustained. If B can summon the resources to fight off A, it's not the same thing as B simply starting a NEW war.
So, you have to look at the details between the two belligerents before, during, AND after the war to identify: what evils inflicted between them were the cause(s) that initiated the war, did the "resolution" of the war to get not-war ACTUALLY address those evils, were new evils unjustly imposed on the loser, and so on. If the condition after the fighting is over (because B simply hasn't anything to fight with) are gravely unjust conditions that compound or sustain the evils that initiated the war (say, the Japanese "rape of Nanking" for years), you can't call that peace and you have to allow that new fighting 20 years later may well be justified war. The absence of mass fighting in set battles is not the same as peace, and so it is indeed possible for mass fighting to break out 20 years after the last big battles as a resumption of "the war".
The details matter.
This war will end when Trump wants it to end.
ReplyDeleteA rare occasion where I am in complete agreement with you, Prof. While we're here, I figure that I ought to take the time to clear up one particularly stupid talking point that I've also seen brought up: the fact that the Iranians say "Death to America" being interpreted as evidence of ruthless savagery or genocidal intent. This requires you to interpret the phrase in a thuddingly literal manner, despite the fact that the Iranians don't use it that way, and the regime's officials have repeatedly clarified that that isn't what it means. Yes, if you translate "Marg bar Âmrikâ" literally, that's what it means, but repeated usage has made it clear that it's intended to be interpreted as opposition to American empire and policy towards Muslim countries. It's why official Iranian government documents translate it as "Down with America" instead, because that's more in line with the spirit of what the phrase actually means.
ReplyDeleteHello, EXE, I agree, that's another silly talking point.
DeleteEXE,
DeleteI have to compliment you on the change in your attitude and behavior toward the blog. Compared to some of the things you used to say before, the way you've become more polite and measured is genuinely commendable.
One thing that especially stood out to me recently was your apology for being too harsh on Ed's post, "Cancelled in L.A." That gave me the impression that you’re not really a belligerent person by nature, and that you do reflect on the excesses that can come out when responding to people here.
And remember, just because most of us here — myself included — are conservative doesn’t mean we are, or should be, enemies. There’s always a common good to be found across the political spectrum, and that’s what we should focus on if we actually want to improve things. Thought-provoking comments like this one are a great contribution to the discussion and are always welcome.
As I said, I don’t think you’re naturally the hateful type, but when you feel attacked or frustrated at someone's answer, you sometimes escalate too quickly — and I’m guilty of that as well, especially when someone seems to be 'rage baiting'. Still, based on your previous response to me on the referred post, I get the sense that you’ve reflected on all of this and genuinely regret hurting people’s feelings — and I think at the bottom, you don't really want to do that to people. So, congratulations on adopting a more nuanced and thoughtful approach. God bless you.
Vini,
DeleteI have been here a very long time, always as Anonymous. Ed is a good guy, even if I sometimes disagree with him with my off-topic comments that don't get published. BTW, I continue to pray for you, as I promised you I would awhile back.
Thank you. I don't think it's likely that we will ever see eye to eye on much, but since I used to be one of you I might have a better insight into your thought processes than your average Leftist. Though I'm not a Christian anymore, I still attempt to be humble, keeping in mind that there's a lot I don't know. It just gets my blood up seeing ignorance, bigotry, or any other flagrant stupidity that hurts innocent people, and then I get into a fighting mood.
Delete@anon
DeleteHey, my friend,
I often remember you with gratitude and affection for all your care and solid advice.
I wanted to share some good news with you: my OCD has receded so much since December 2024, something I honestly never thought would happen in this lifetime. As you know, mine is the thinking type (philosophical matters and so on), and some of those intrusive thoughts had been stuck with me since 2019. It was very rough to say the least.
Curiously, it was through philosophy itself — especially Ed’s work — that I was finally able to shift my mind, even though it took a lot of effort (OCD distorts things so intensely). But thanks to God, your prayers, Ed’s prayers, and everyone else who has prayed for me, I experienced what our ancestors would call a metanoia.
To be honest, I still deal with some brain fog and mental fatigue, but thanks to your recommendation of magnesium — that was a bullseye, by the way —, I can function like a normal person again most of the time (even though my mind doesn’t sound like a broken record anymore, these other effects still linger in some way or another from time to time). I’m taking magnesium dimalate, and this variation truly helped — it feels like it unlocked a “mental space,” let's say, to think and remember that I had almost forgotten I still possessed.
You are always in my prayers. By the way, I love to address the people I pray for by name, so it would be really nice to know at least your first name (only if you’re comfortable sharing it).
Finally, I need to say this from the bottom of my heart: thank you. Thank you for your prayers and for genuinely caring. We live in a world where most people are careless and indifferent towards others, almost bordering on apathy. But, thankfully, there are people like you, Ed, and so many others. You felt compassion for a man who lives far away from you because you know and feel his pain. People are often insensitive about this nowadays, but let me tell you something: this is beautiful in itself, and it reveals the beauty of your own psyche and how close you are to God's Will. So, even though suffering is part of this world — and OCD causes a lot of it —, good things can come from it — and you, my friend, are one of those good things. You’re a good man, and God loves you. Never forget that and keep strong in the fight, because one day this suffering will all end.
God bless you, my friend.
@EXE
DeleteEven though we come from different angles, I think there’s more common ground than people usually admit. Here are a few things that stand out to me:
- Labor relations must be fair and pay better. Working like 10 hours a day and with just a tiny pay is no joke. It’s exhausting families, killing leisure, and turning life into a survival game. Our philosopher ancestors would probably call this a kind of slavery.
- The financial system’s power over regular people and families (especially through debt) is very predatory. Yes, personal responsibility matters, but when the rules are tilted so heavily toward institutions, it becomes deeply unfair. The sheer pleonexia, apathy, and power these institutions are really oppressive — I don't like the way this word is tossed nowadays, but in this case is very true.
- Consumerism, selfishness, and the general decline in basic decency are making society harder and more unsufferable to live in. We need better formation. Most people nowadays need to re-learn how to act like civilized people. This can only be achieved by means of a true education, one that is more focused on morals and human improvements than just an expensive, wall-decorating degree that pumps student debt.
- People who do good need to be acknowledged and rewarded for their efforts and deeds.
- Racism of any kind is evil. God created us human beings equally, and we all have the same terminus.
- Other countries have the right to exist and should not be harmed by bigger countries, with massive military power, unless there are serious and irrefutable reasons for it to be stopped (like attacking neighbor country for its land, minerals, and so on).
I say this because I get the sense you actually care about fairness, human dignity, and protecting people from being screwed over. That’s something I respect. Conservatives aren’t blind to these problems either — we just tend to disagree on the best solutions. You might disagree with the way I put a problem or two, but I think we can agree that these things are a problem.
I also wanted to say I really appreciated this line of yours:
"Though I’m not a Christian anymore, I still attempt to be humble, keeping in mind that there’s a lot I don’t know. It just gets my blood up seeing ignorance, bigotry, or any other flagrant stupidity that hurts innocent people..."
That humility is valuable. The world is full of people who are certain about everything and furious about everything. It’s easy to let that anger become permanent. I’ve been there myself.
If I can leave you with one honest thought (not as a sermon, just as one guy to another): don’t let politics or ideology close the door on the possibility that there’s a deeper Love behind everything. Ignore everything I said above if you want, but please keep this.
Life gets heavy, the fighting mood feels justified, and it’s tempting to push away anything that smells like “religion.” But I’ve found that even when I was angry at the world or at God, that Love didn’t give up on me.
You seem like someone with a good heart who doesn’t actually enjoy being in permanent combat mode. So I’ll just say this: don’t despair of God’s love. I know it might sound like the typical religious pitch, but I’m saying it because of the way you write and think. Beneath the anger and the ideology, it seems like there’s an emptiness that no political side can truly fill. And in my experience, only He can. So, whatever the situation you are in, don't think He will not want you back with open arms.
Take care, brother.
Vini,
DeleteI was deeply touched by your post My first name is Bill, Guillermo in Spanish. My mother was from San Jose, Costa Rica. I think you're Portuguese, right?. I am glad the magnesium helped. I am 75 and have had a lifetime struggle with low grade depression and anxiety, despite therapy and medication. I have personally known a number of people who have taken their lives, including a Catholic priest who was pastor in a church nearby me. I often ruminate about incidents that happened many years ago, but have never had true OCD. Many people with OCD are highly intelligent, like you. There have people on this blog, now gone, who had psychological issues, but unlike you, they were angry and vitriolic.
I have always felt a deep compassion for people. In 1989, I started praying for a co-worker who was brilliant at work, but lost his job because of his alcoholism. Over the years, I started praying for more people. I now pray for about 150 people, living and deceased, every night. I even pray for celebrities.
I am not a particularly good Catholic. I rarely go to Mass. But I do tithe a full 10 percent of my income to my church, in addition to another 5 percent of individuals in need.
I was very close to my mom, who was a saintly woman and a kind and gentle person. I watched her wither away from dementia over 10 years. She passed 4 years ago at the ago of 92. It was a traumatic experience for me.
As I said, I am 75, and as you get older, you see relatives, neighbors, and friends pass on. What makes it bad for me is that I live alone. Never been married or in a relationship. I have a sister, but she lives in another state and we don't get along. Getting older is scary, esp if you are alone. I am healthy, but no one gets out here alive. Well, mi amigo, dios las bendiga. Con mucho gusto. I am not fluent in Spanish, but I like to practice it.
My niece is a cloistered nun. After my mom passed she sent me a card with this quote by C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity. "He (God) knows what a wretched machine you are trying to drive. Keep on. Do what you can do." Let us both do that, my friend.
Bill
It's very nice of you to say those things, Vini, though personally, I think I've seen too much of "how the sausage is/was made" regarding Christianity to go back to taking it seriously. To be clear, I'm not upset with you for saying that, on the contrary, I appreciate your concern and prayers. I don't, however, feel an internal emptiness - I feel pretty calm most of the time when I'm not watching something rage-inducing, and my OCD has calmed down a lot.
DeleteA couple of thoughts on the other things you said:
-Obviously we are agreed on the evils of racism. However, I'd urge you to consider something - that racism often doesn't take the obvious, unapologetically vile form that we're all familiar with from the Jim Crow era. That kind of blatant, aggressive, mask-off bigotry can only exist in an environment that's highly permissive towards it. But just because it can't manifest in that way doesn't mean it vanishes. Racism can take subtler forms, as it had to after the Civil Rights Act, when you needed to start finding excuses for it. For instance, redlining, the practice of denying financial services such as loans to neighborhoods with large ethnic minority populations, further trapping them in poverty - which, perversely, makes them "high risk" places, thus "justifying" the continuation of redlining. Of course, nobody would ever say that it was because the residents weren't White, some "respectable" excuse would be trotted out as a fig-leaf, but when someone consistently "just so happens" to act in a way that disadvantages minorities, you have to take seriously the idea that it's being done on purpose.
I have a deeper point to make on this topic, but I prefer my comments to avoid turning into sprawling, multi-topic essays, so I'll do that one in a second comment.
Leading on from my previous point, one of the most insidious things about racism is that you don't even have to be a racist to perpetuate it. It, along with other assumptions, gets down into our bones through the culture we share, and can often operate deep down at the level of unexamined instinct and assumption. Let me back up and explain exactly what I mean to avoid confusion. Say you see a shady-looking young White man on the other side of the street. Obviously, you will probably have some level of caution if you see him. Now, if it were a young Black man instead, would your level of automatic caution be higher? Assume that there are no significant differences between the two men other than their race - no identifying marks or symbols that would indicate danger, such as gang tattoos, a weapon, etc. If the answer is yes, then racist assumptions (namely, that Black men are more likely to be violent criminals than White men) are affecting your judgment. Note that this does NOT make you a racist, at least not by itself. This is what Leftists are trying to say when they talk about implicit bias. Let me repeat - you are not evil or bad for having these assumptions. You did not choose the culture you were born into, and these operate below the level of conscious thought. Even someone who genuinely doesn't have a racist bone in their body can be affected by these. But despite not being anyone's fault, these can still have very harmful effects. For instance, the odds of you feeling threatened by the young Black man in our example are considerably higher, meaning that he will more easily trip the "I am in serious danger and/or should call the police" threshold in your brain. A White man would have to do something more obviously dangerous or threatening to trip the same threshold, which gives him a kind of benefit. This is what Leftists actually mean when they talk about "White Privilege" - namely, not having to deal with these assumptions making your life any harder than it already is. It doesn't, and never has, meant that all White people have it easy, are never treated unfairly, or should be punished for being White (that's obviously not true). If any Leftist does say any of these things, I'll personally call them a dumbass and give them a clip 'round the ear for perpetuating the very harm they're supposed to be fighting.
DeleteFor example, this heightened level of scrutiny can lead to one group being less able to "get away with" crimes and misdemeanors, leading to them making up higher percentages of the crime statistics, further reinforcing the stereotype of them being criminals. Marijuana use rates among Blacks and Whites in America are very similar, but Blacks are considerably more likely to be arrested for it (according to ACLU statistics, it's 3.6X nationwide average, with it going much higher in certain states such as Montana, which is nearly 10X). Most likely, this is because the cop is more likely to be suspicious if he sees a Black person than a White person, assuming all other circumstances are equal. Thus, a larger percentage of the Black criminals get caught (this isn't going into the possibility of corrupt and/or racist cops, which is also a thing, but this example is meant to show how racial bias can affect even genuinely good cops).
OK, one last comment (it was too long to put it all in one!):
DeleteThis isn't limited to race, it includes all sorts of biases (sexism, for instance), regardless of what you actually personally believe. Here's a good exercise: the next time you hear a woman, Black person, etc tell you something, or you hear it said that they said something, instinctively swap their race/sex/etc, and see if your reaction changes. For example, if a woman says something, imagine that a man were saying it instead. If you find yourself instinctively taking the claim more seriously when you do this, there's a good chance that the belief "women aren't really to be taken seriously" is subconsciously affecting your attitudes, even if you personally find that idea disgusting. I have to admit that I myself have found that this kind of bias affects me sometimes, and I have to work against it consciously. It's not an easy fight, but it's worth it to try and become a better man, one more capable of manifesting virtue rather than allowing his base nature to control him.
Uhh, sorry for making four posts - I hope this doesn't come across as bombarding the post! But I remembered one very interesting detail regarding the Civil Rights Movement. MLK Jr once said that the real biggest threat to the movement wasn't racists but White Moderates. What he meant by that was that there weren't actually all that many genuinely hateful bigots, but there were plenty of people who just wanted to get rid of lynching and Jim Crow, and then go home and assume the war had been won rather than actually finish the job.
DeleteHey Bill!
DeleteGuillermo is a classic name and full of meaning, but I’ve got to say — Bill feels way cooler. So I’ll stick with Bill if that’s okay with you.
You shared a lot of meaningful things, and I wanted to reply to all of them. I’m from Brazil, but believe it or not, we can understand a good part of Spanish, Portuguese (from Portugal), and even Italian sometimes. So I got your message perfectly — and honestly, your Spanish is still pretty good!
What you said about your mother really touched me. I’m sure she was one of the best this world had to offer — just by seeing the wonderful son she raised. I believe with all my heart that she’s now resting in the loving arms of our Father.
My mother is my hero, too. She raised me all by herself and faced the world with incredible strength. My father was never a good man, so God blessed me with a mom who showed me what real love looks like. I’m so grateful to her — and especially to God — for giving me a mother like her. One day, when I become a father, if I have a daughter, I’m naming her Gisela (whether my future wife likes it or not!). I honestly can’t imagine my life without her, too.
And I felt that when you mentioned praying for others. There’s something truly special and powerful about carrying strangers in your heart before God. When I was 16 or 17, I used to go to the zoo often and used to pray for every child I saw, counting them one by one. I'm 28 now. In my early twenties, I went through a rebellious phase, drifted away, and eventually found my way back to the Church. I never stopped being a Catholic — I wasn’t being a good one for a very long while. A lot of battles have happened since then, but I'm truly thankful to God that, through it all, I never lost that heart. And I can see that you never lost it either, Bill.
I know life hasn’t been easy for you, my friend. You’ve walked through very difficult seasons, yet you’ve managed to turn your struggles into something truly good and beautiful. The world eagerly needs people like you, Bill — especially your faithful prayers and kind heart.
And about death — yes, it’s the last enemy we will face in this life. But don’t be afraid, my friend. God is with you. You’ve lived much more than I have and surely know far more about life than I do, but let me gently remind you of this: nothing in this world is worth trading for God. In Him, you will never truly be alone.
Whenever that moment comes — whether many years from now or whenever the Father calls us home — I hope and pray that you give Him your whole heart. Don't choose anything lower than Him, because nothing will ever satisfy you (or any of us) but Him. He is the only one who can wipe away every tear, regret, sadness, and sin.
I truly hope you live a long and blessed life, my friend. The world needs more people like you. But no matter when our time comes, I know God will be there with open arms for all of us.
By His grace, I believe that one day we will meet in Heaven, shake hands like old friends, and smile together, remembering this conversation — knowing that God used it to strengthen our faith and that, in Him, we will overcome death.
Finally, Bill, I’d like to ask you something… If it’s not too much, would you try going to Church this Sunday? I know you already carry God in your heart, but I truly believe He would be glad to welcome you there in His house.
Que Deus te abençoe muito, meu querido amigo.
@Exe
DeleteYou raised a lot of deep and thoughtful points there. Even though we live in very different parts of the world, I think a good portion of what you said is unfortunately true.
Full honesty: I don’t have much personal experience with the effects of the Civil Rights Movement, so you’ve given me plenty to chew on.
I’ll read all of your comments carefully, call out the parts where I think you are spot on, and try to convince my last two brain cells to work together long enough to put together a proper reply on this Friday or tomorrow.
Btw, didn't know you have OCD too. I'm glad you're okay, though. Thank God. I know how it can be a pain in the arse when it kicks.
I know this might sound like classic uncle advice, but cutting down on energy drinks (especially stuff like Monster Mango Loco), skipping rope, or even going out for a jog can genuinely help with OCD symptoms.
Back in late 2019, when Mango Loco started to pop up around here, I used to drink quite a lot of it. I probably have a kidney stone somewhere with the Monster logo stamped on it by now. Honestly, it was one of the stupiest things I have ever done to my health.
I finally quit it for good around mid 2023 or so, and thinking about it now, I realized that a huge part of my anxiety and intrusive thoughts was probably being amplified by it. So if you're into them, I highly recommend that you quit it too, if you can.
And don't need to worry about the sequence of posts, I know this discussion has a lot of points to be made.
@Exe
DeleteI will try to synthesize everything in the most compact way I can.
Racism can take various forms, that's very true; it isn't always overt hatred — it can also hide behind a "helping hand."
In Rio de Janeiro, Leonel Brizola’s public security approach in the late 80s and early 90s is a clear example. He argued that police brutality disproportionately affected workers living there. He drastically reduced police presence: limiting patrols, banning operations on weekends, restricting helicopter flights, and even avoiding activity around schools, which is bizarre.
Beyond the corruption and near-bankruptcy of a prefecture at the time, the result was predictable. Criminal factions exploited this power vacuum, took control of entire communities, and turned Rio into the faction state that we see today. What was sold as "freedom for the workers from police oppression" became, in practice, abandoning those same communities to organized crime.
And what makes the situation even more troubling is that successive governments never seriously reversed that course. At some point, it becomes difficult to see it as mere incompetence rather than a deliberate political choice to tolerate a parallel power structure in those areas.
You also touched on the topic of unconscious racist behavior and police profiling.
Here in Brazil — and I don’t know how comparable this is to the US — most of the population is black or mixed-race. We usually use the term pardo here, which doesn’t translate perfectly into English as “brown.”
Let me explain my reasoning step by step. First, I don’t believe people are born racist — and I’m not implying that you claimed otherwise; I’m just laying the foundation for my argument.
Some of my neighbors when I was growing up were black, and as kids, there was never any racial hostility between us. At most, there was that innocent curiosity children naturally have when they first meet someone different from themselves. Very quickly, we became friends, played together, and spent time at each other’s houses. I saw the same thing happen with many other children growing up (...)
(I think that's too long, I will continue bellow)
Thanks for your reply, Vini. I will go to church either this Sunday or the next. Back when a church across town had 24/7 Adoration, I would go late at night, once or twice a week. When Covid came along, they stopped Adoration and haven't resumed it. I do try to stop by my parish church, which has Adoration, but since it's only in the afternoon, I only stay for about 15 minutes.
DeleteQue Dios nos bendiga.
At the same time, I’d be lying if I said I’ve never crossed the street out of fear when seeing someone at night who happened to be black or pardo. But in my mind, the fear was never simply about skin color itself. It was about context: the way the person was behaving, the environment, body language, hiding the face with a hood, or other signals that people associate — rightly or wrongly — with danger.
DeleteBrazil can be extremely violent, depending on where you live. Even in relatively good neighborhoods, gang culture and criminal behavior are very present in daily life. That reality shapes people’s instincts, sometimes unfairly, and I think that’s where the discussion becomes more complicated than simply reducing everything to pure racial hatred.
But to be sure, the police profile black and pardo people more frequently than white people, especially regarding drug use or trafficking. And honestly, I don’t think the explanation is simply that they make up a large part of the population — although that obviously plays some role statistically.
At the same time, I personally know white people who have been arrested for drug trafficking, so this is not a phenomenon exclusive to one racial group.
What I do believe is undeniably true is that wealth and social status heavily influence how people are treated by the justice system. Richer individuals often have better lawyers, more social protection, and are less likely to be approached with the same level of suspicion or force. In many cases, class privilege overlaps with race, which makes the issue even more complex.
So yes, racial profiling exists. But I think that the discussion goes beyond race and includes major factors like poverty, criminal environment, corruption, and class inequality, all of which are deeply intertwined in Brazil.
Frankly, I’m not sure there’s an easy fix for any of this. In many ways, I think the enormous racial tension amplified by media, social media, inflammatory rhetoric, and ideological tribalism often makes things worse instead of better. And that’s genuinely sad.
A lot of younger people today grow up with the feeling that they’ll either be oppressed or rejected because of their skin color, while others grow up being taught to see entire groups as potential threats. That creates fear and resentment on all sides, and once that mentality becomes widespread, it’s very difficult to reverse.
Globally or politically, maybe there’s only so much we can do. But on an individual level, I still think people can break the ice and make life more human and livable.
Here in Brazil, we receive immigrants from places like Haiti, Angola, Venezuela, and Colombia. Haitians and Angolans, especially, often seem more reserved or isolated. There’s a group of three women I frequently pass by during the day. I know they understand Portuguese, even though I can’t understand their Creole conversations.
At some point, I simply started smiling and saying “bom dia” whenever we crossed paths. Over time, it became natural. Now we recognize each other, smile, and greet one another almost automatically.
That may sound small, but I think moments like that matter. Sometimes racism is rooted in fear, and sometimes basic human warmth is enough to begin breaking that barrier down.
I also think a lasting solution would require something deeper: a robust metaphysical and moral framework capable of demonstrating that all human beings possess equal dignity and ultimately share the same human end. That, in my view, is one of the many areas in which Aristotelian-Thomism truly stands out.
Conflations of truth are status quo now. They have always been favored by constitutive realists and their cheer leaders, which I call IMPS---specific interests, motives and preferences. If you do not like something, make up something different: who's going to notice? Some of us will. I am pleased you have noticed, and hope that may erase some of the ruse now eroding our society. Thanks, Professor.
ReplyDeleteDecision makers should take into account facts and circumstances (as known to them) when making a moral choice. Any external analysis, such as offered by Prof. Feser, is "judging".
ReplyDeleteSteve Long put paid to this nonsense over at First Things. If Ed is serious about this, he needs to write a response. Long positively demolished Feser’s arguments, and he’s a highly orthodox Thomist.
ReplyDeleteI think this post greatly overstates things.
ReplyDeleteFor example, "But as it happens, there is nothing distinctively Thomistic about that definition, and I think it corresponds closely to how pretty much everyone usually understands what a war is (except some advocates of the current war, who for political reasons suddenly favor a more expansive definition)." is transparently seen as an overstatement once we see what are the things that the authors want to distinguish from the war. In (a) they are "battles, skirmishes, campaigns", in (b) they are "civil war, sedition, riots, duels", in (c) they are "trade war, rivalry in preparedness for war, embargo, blockade, breach of diplomatic relations".
Now, usually "pretty much everyone" does not need to distinguish war and civil war. For example, the military strategy is the same. Of course, moral philosophers and theologians have to distinguish them, as the requirements for just war and just civil war are not necessarily the same.
Another problem is that the state of affairs between USA and Iran was not any of the things that those authors were distinguishing from war. It was not a battle, it was not a civil war, it was not a trade war. Perhaps the most fitting description is "Low-intensity conflict". For example, US Army Field Manual FM 100-20 Low Intensity Conflict of 1990 defines it thus: "Low intensity conflict is a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states.". It think that the state of affairs between USA and Iran fit this definition rather well.
It seems to me that not much work has been done to explore how Just war theory applies to such Low intensity conflict (I guess such conflicts were relatively rare when Just war theory was developed). This blog post could be a step towards correcting that. But just throwing accusations of "sophistry" does not seem to be all that helpful.
And the work here seems substandard. For example, it is strange that the quote of Fr. Austin Fagothey ("War is active hostility; mere preparation for future aggression or defense is not war, but there must be actual fighting, though it may be intermittent.") was used to support "There has to be a condition of sustained armed conflict between them." without more explanations. After all, "intermittent" and "sustained" would seem to be closer to antonyms than to synonyms.
I would say that both options are plausible (for example, it could be argued that the important thing about war from moral point of view is that in war governments authorise soldiers of their side to kill soldiers of the other side, which also seems to be the case in Low intensity conflict).
Also, to take some older conflicts (so that thoughts about Trump would not cloud judgement): were Phoney war (WW2 in European theater after Germany conquered Poland, in this case counting to German attack on Denmark and Norway) and War of Bavarian succession (1778-1779) wars? The wars were declared, but there was little fighting. How about the Northern Crusades? There were many campaigns with breaks between them (and some diplomacy). How many wars were there? And what about the First Crusade? Bl. Urban II declared it in 1095, but the crusaders only reached lands controlled by Muslims in May of 1097, and thus there was no (intended) fighting until then. Was that a war until then? Did the declaration of war "expire" by that time?
In addition to the definition of "war", which Prof. Feser justly advanced in the O.P., we also need to look at the traditional list of "acts of war", which include the following:
ReplyDelete(1) Direct Military Strike: Launching missiles, bombing, or shelling the territory, ships, or aircraft of another nation.
(2) Invasion or Troop Deployment: Unauthorized entry of armed forces into the territory of another state.
(3) Assassination of Leaders/Diplomats: The intentional killing of a head of state or high-level officials.
(4) Naval Blockade: Preventing commercial or military shipping from entering or leaving a nation's ports.
(5) Destruction of Property: Seizing or destroying foreign assets, such as merchant vessels or state property.
(6) Sponsorship of Terrorism: Providing active support for non-state actors conducting attacks against another nation.
All but (1) are not simply "war" in themselves, but they have always been considered "acts of war" because they are war-like without being "war". They are war-like because they cut across the edges of civilized behavior into uncivilized behavior, they involve violence and grave violation of just rights, and they directly promote the conditions from which war becomes all but inevitable. They harbor much of the essence of war other than that one condition of actual, sustained physical fighting of massed forces. When present and significant, that fact denies that there is "peace". The condition is something of a gray area between war and peace.
So, it is beneficial to define "war" and ALSO to define "almost war" for the present purpose. And to ask the question that arises more or less obviously once you reasonably determine that "the conditions from 1979 through 2025 were not 'war' ": Were the conditions during that time, and especially in the last few years, one of persistent, by government policy, acts of war by one party against the other(s)? And, if so, to what extent, and with what gravity?
I see that MP and I are pointing out similar truths. While "war" and "peace" are clearly definable in principle, and there is a clear separation between them, in practice there are gray areas of not-quite war, not-quite peace, and perhaps others. There might not be a true continuum in the conceptual slide from peace to war, but there clearly are several conditions in between that are morally significant to the matter of whether the final step of going to war is justified. Intermittent violence, and low-level conflict, and acts-of-war events, all set the stage for when the (upright) decision to commit to war is more clear. History presents to us an innumerable list of examples of conditions that were almost-war, that were at least plausibly considered unacceptable as an ongoing condition, even though such conditions didn't result in immediate declaration of war and could be suffered for a time while attempting less-than-war solutions. The capacity of the victim country to bear the unjust condition for a while isn't supposed to represent proof that the condition is not a just cause of war.
Delete“Similar truths” being the actual overstatement MP accused Feser off. You folks are hilarious on this. Iran’s democratically elected govt was overthrown by the US in 1953. That govt was then overthrown in 1979. If ‘warlike’ is your new way of justifying the Iran war, how exactly is Iran the sui generis actor when the US has NEVER stopped destabilizing actions against the country? How are you going to justify launching missiles and killing thousands of people BECAUSE you have actively engaged in skirmishes and other warlike behavior against a country that has this posture towards you because YOU performed a coup on their soil? Has Iran overthrown the US govt ever? How many times have they attempted to? How many times have we directly or indirectly tried to ‘take them out’?
ReplyDeleteHave the Iranians launched missiles at Texas and decimated universities, or other infrastructure? Have they created Iranian bases that encircle the US and deployed warships and anti-aircraft weapons to South America? Show me the comparable military buildup and encirclement of the United States - where you can say Iran initiated a warlike environment against a passive, ‘just existing over here’ United States. You cannot.
And just in case you try to use this argument: Iranian proxies are a *response* to Israel and US action not some out of the blue creation.
So, Iran has acted like a nation-state defending its own interests ( spying, skirmishes, violence, proxies - with all the bad that comes with it ) against another nation-state that has shown repeatedly its willingness to harm them. The ridiculousness of constantly imagining how you can justify this war and not dealing with the reality of US aggression would be mind blowing, if it wasn’t the normal behavior of conservatives. Head in the sand; just make it up. Start with the premise that your *performed* Christian ideology makes you automatically good and the only thing intellectually left to do is just imagine how you can make any and all obvious evil, okay. Simple calculation- every escape hatch you make for the US, do the same for the Iranians. The difference will come down to your ideologies and caricatures of Iran has some lunatic empire, hitching to blow up Israel and the world. You won’t defeat that boogeyman in your heads cause it’s necessary to enable you to make these arguments that apply just as much for the Iranians.
If you actually disabused yourself of the nonsense, then far from splitting hairs about war or warlike ( since it applies equally to each nation state , hell, unequally to the US as aggressor) , the actual discussion would be - for serious Christians- how is this Just? What world should we be encouraging? Should we be supporting an international order where Power alone determines right? THIS was the last resort? We didn’t have ANY other option?
None of you can actually deal with this, the actual monumental issues facing the international order because of the current US govt. You just keep inventing reasons why it’s okay.
Anonymous May 15, 2026 at 2:02 PM,
DeleteIran’s democratically elected govt was overthrown by the US in 1953.
Although this is an often repeated story it isn't factual.
Prime Minister Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah not elected. Mossadegh overstepped his authority and actually tried to dissolve the parliament (something only the Shah could legally do) and the Shah dismissed him (Iranian Prime Ministers were replaced frequently). There was no overthrow of the Iranian government because the Shah had always been in power.
This is from Tablet Magazine explaining what happened:
First, the CIA did not mount or execute a coup. Second, Mossadegh was not democratically elected. Third, the shah was not yet corrupt. Fourth, he was not brought back to power, because he had never left it:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/cia-coup-in-iran-that-never-was-mossadegh
The CIA has admitted to its role in overthrowing the govt of Iran in 1953.
Deletehttps://www.nfoic.org/blogs/cia-formally-acknowledges-its-role-1953-iranian-coup/
I wouldn't trust Tablet on this issue, because they're verifiably telling you lies here. Notably, Theroux doesn't cite even a single source for his claims, because they're distortions of the truth.
ReplyDelete"Prime Minister Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah not elected"
Iran at this time was a semi-constitutional monarchy with a Constitution similar to the British system. Mossadegh was already a member of Parliament, the Majlis then voted him in as Prime Minister in a majority vote. This decision was confirmed by the Shah, who performed the formal appointment. This is the way that the British do it - does that imply that the British PM isn't elected? IOW, this is equivocation on the meaning of the word "appointed". He was not a royalist lackey or minister picked solely by the monarch, rather, his democratic election was confirmed by the Shah.
"Mossadegh overstepped his authority and actually tried to dissolve the parliament (something only the Shah could legally do)"
This is technically true, but deliberately shears out the surrounding context to mislead. Yes, Mossadegh did try to dissolve Parliament, and yes, that was a dictatorial thing to do, which I don't approve of. However, this only happened in the first place because of a British naval blockade that strangled Iran's economy, which in turn occurred because of Iran nationalizing its own oil production. Over the course of several years, this caused Iran's internal situation to degrade, causing instability and political chaos. This, along with the perception that Mossadegh was aligning himself with the Communist Tudeh party, was what finally convinced the USA to go along with Britain in the coup, something they'd been reluctant to do so far.
"the Shah dismissed him"
This overlooks the fact that the Shah himself also supported the oil nationalization, and initially opposed the coup attempt. He was convinced to go along with it because the Americans told him that if he didn't, they'd get rid of him too. So, this point is trying to pretend that the Shah dismissed Mossadegh as a matter of course, when in fact he was pressured into doing so.
"There was no overthrow of the Iranian government because the Shah had always been in power"
This is equivocating on the meaning of the word "government". Under a constitutional monarchy, the Monarch is Head of State, but not Head of Government. In this context "Government" means the administration that handles day-to-day running of the country. Again, compare it to Britain. Queen Elizabeth II reigned uninterrupted for seven decades, yet there were nineteen governments during that time. Since the Queen did not lead any of those governments, it was perfectly possible for them to collapse and be replaced without anything happening to her. The State remained, but the Government(s) did not. Now, the Shah had more power than the British monarch does, but he still was not Head of Government. Him remaining in power does not imply that no government was overthrown. And in fact, what happened in the aftermath was that the Shah consolidated power, banning political parties that opposed him, turning the Parliament into a rubber stamp organization for his rule, establishing a brutal secret police, etc. In effect, the coup overthrew the Mossadegh government and replaced it with an empowered Royal government, where the Shah took over more power in the government. This is a coup, despite the fact that one monarch continued reigning throughout it.
EXE,
DeleteYou have not provided any sources for your claims that the article is lying. And it seems that although you claim the author is equivocating the same charge could be leveled against your counter-argument.
For instance:
If the Shah had not appointed Mossadegh he would not have been Prime Minister regardless of what the parliament did. So no lie.
You agreed that Mossadegh did in fact attempt to illegally dissolve the parliament. So no lie.
You agreed that the Shah dismissed him, so no lie.
You agreed that the Shah did not return to power after Mossadegh was taken from power since he had never left it. So no lie.
The narrative has been that the Shah had been deposed somehow (I don't know how that could be explained other than a coup or revolution) and was put back into power by a coup orchestrated by the CIA. It seems that he had not been deposed, and the person overreaching for power was deposed. And not by the CIA. Those seem to be the objective facts regardless of partisanship about how Mossadegh or the Shah were forced to do what they did. They both chose what they did.
which in turn occurred because of Iran nationalizing its own oil production. Over the course of several years, this caused Iran's internal situation to degrade, causing instability and political chaos.
DeleteIf you're talking about putting under government ownership and control a resource that has not yet been tapped, that's one thing. If you're talking about putting under government ownership and control an industry and infrastructure already existing and owned by various parties, that's also known as theft. It was the latter. Not surprising that the Brits and Americans were unwilling to accept theft of major assets.
I think the two girls will be reconciled and the United States will lose badly
ReplyDelete