Wednesday, March 11, 2026

America’s conflict in Iran is not a just war

In a new article at Public Discourse, I argue that it is even more obvious now than it was at the start that the Iran war does not meet the conditions for a just war.

Posted by at

57 comments:

  1. AnonymousMarch 11, 2026 at 8:15 PM

    George Weigel cheered on the Iraq War. I don't see where he has commented on this war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 8:55 AM

      Weigel wrote a piece in the Catholic Register last year in which he suggested that going after Iran would be fully justified under just war principles. Weigel has apparently learned nothing since the Iraq War.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 1:10 PM

      Well, if Weigel was for the war last year, I am surprised he's not praising Trump for his action. Unless he's changed his mind about about the war.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 14, 2026 at 11:52 AM

      George Weigel hasn't changed his mind about anything in forty years.

      Delete
  2. Tim FinlayMarch 11, 2026 at 11:05 PM

    As Stuart Gottlieb points out, "The original text of the Constitution granted Congress sole power 'to make war,' but the final draft replaced 'make' with 'declare,' recognizing the unique prerogatives of the president ('commander-in-chief') on national security. Ever since Thomas Jefferson waged 'undeclared war against North African pirates in the Mediterranean, all presidents have claimed such authority. And while the 1973 War Powers Act tried to curb its excesses, the Trump administration met the letter of that law by informing Congressional leaders prior to the strike, and now has 60 days to garner formal approvals."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William TigheMarch 12, 2026 at 6:46 PM

      On the matter of Jefferson and the Barbary wars I shall. My bailiwick is European history, but I have kept abreast of most things touching US history before 1861. I especially made a protracted study of the Barbary wars some years ago, and find that the annexation of Jefferson to the current (or any) action by Presidents a bit stretched. Jefferson dissented on several occasions from both Hamilton (often) and Madison (frequently) on the executive powers.

      As regards the Barbary states, they had demanded tribute (protection extortions) from nations sailing the Mediterranean. Before Jefferson had ever taken office, congress had already commissioned six frigates that “shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.” This was all done by 1798, before Jefferson was president. Jefferson’s Sec. of the Navy, Samuel Smith, echoed the legislation from congress when noting the navy was to “protect our commerce & chastise their insolence – by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.” This was in his directive given from Jefferson via a cabinet meeting before Smith confronted the Pasha (Bey) of Tripoli, who declared war on the US later in 1801. When Jefferson did finally send the ships, he noted that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense,” as only Congress could grant “measures of offense also.” Thus Jefferson told Congress: “I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”

      Jefferson was more specific on these matters as regards boundary disputes with Spain. Jeffeson thought Spain possessed of an “intention to advance on our possessions until they shall be repressed by an opposing force. Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force…. But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or to deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue, and will pursue with sincere zeal that which they shall approve.”

      Delete
    2. BharatMarch 13, 2026 at 9:59 AM

      Another (better) explanation is that "declaring" war amounts to starting it, whereas "making" war amounts to carrying it out. This is consistent with the view that our founders in multiple places stressed, that they purposefully removed the power of the executive to start wars and placed it in the hands of the legislative, so that starting wars would be a deliberative act (they did not want a king, after all).

      For example (and this is just one), Hamilton in Federalist #69 states “The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.”

      Delete
  3. AnonymousMarch 11, 2026 at 11:47 PM

    "Ayatollah Khamenei led a brutal regime..." - this characterization is just false. Khamenei has acted as a stabilizing force in the Islamic Republic, upholding the principles of the revolution and defending national sovereignty. A Platonic philosopher-king in the classical sense, he has prioritized justice, spiritual integrity, and the resilience of his nation over material gain or Western approval. His leadership has consistently focused on shielding Iran from the coercive economic warfare waged by the United States and its master Israel whose policies have consistently undermined peace and self-determination in the Middle East.

    "... whose crimes include the recent massacre of tens of thousands of protesters." - lol 'tens of thousands', really? are you sure it wasn't six million? baseless propaganda, fabricated to fit a tired Western narrative of authoritarian villainy. Where is the independent verification? You have pretensions to philosophy, so its sad that you should give in to such sensationalist journalism and rhetoric. The Iranian government has exercised great restraint despite facing foreign-backed (acknowledged even by your leaders and their Israeli masters!) unrest aimed at destabilizing the country.

    "It is hard not to sympathize with Iranians who cheered his death."
    lol really? it's hard not to sympathize with a bunch of LA degenerates Iranians whose upper class families escaped Iran when their American puppet shah was overthrown? Be objective.

    "It is also perfectly reasonable to seek to prevent such a regime from acquiring nuclear weapons." - The lack of self-awareness here is staggering. The same logic would apply afortiori to the American/Israeli epstein empire — nations whose foreign policy has caused devastation across several continents, whose military-industrial complex operates with impunity, and whose leadership class has been implicated in global corruption scandals, including ties to known criminals and human traffickers. America has the largest, most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world and a track record of using, at the behest of its master, its power to topple governments and subjugate nations. S if any state should be disarmed or prevented from possessing nuclear weapons, it it's your country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 14, 2026 at 9:10 AM

      The Iranian womens football team, in their first game in Australia, refused to sing the national anthem. Iranian state media declared them "wartime traitors". In the later games, they then sang the national anthem. What do you suppose made them change their minds?

      After finishing all their game, 5 players snuck off from the hotel, completely in secret and without the Iranian delegation knowing, to police and were granted humanitarian visas by Australia. What do you think they had to be afraid of?

      Delete
  4. NormMarch 12, 2026 at 1:04 AM

    Great post as usual Prof. Although at some point I think there will have to be a reckoning on Israel, which seems to be a topic that has to be addressed.

    Like for example if Israel had carried out the attack anyways despite US opposition and Iran had started attacking US bases over there.

    Would that change your analysis?

    Do you still think the US should consider Israel as an ally at this point?

    When would it be ok for US soldiers to disobey the govt ?

    All very tough questions but they need to be answered.

    It's fine to call out the bullshit that has been happening but unless some feasible mitigating solutions are suggested people will not be convinced.

    All this at the end of the day I think is the result of diminishing influence of the catholic church, evangelicals with their conflation of the modern state of Israel with the biblical Israel have literally gone insane. Ultimately their seperation from the catholic church will be their own downfall as their influence in USA electoral politics will diminish even further after this fiasco.

    Similarly Catholics like JD Vance and Rubio who have participated in this evil will also lose their credibility among Catholics.

    An electoral bloodbath for conservatives of their own making is on the horizon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OA PoliceMarch 12, 2026 at 10:42 AM

      I think Catholic theologians should speak out against Zionist highjackings of theology. As a Catholic one can still be staunchly pro-Israel, but the theological must be separated from the worldly--this is what failed to happen at the Religious Liberty Commission with Carrie Prejean Boller.

      Delete
    2. NormMarch 12, 2026 at 11:51 PM

      Prof answered one of the questions posed in my comment in his usual erudite fashion in a response to Hazony on twitter

      "Governing authorities are obligated to be morally certain that a proposed war meets just war conditions before authorizing it. But soldiers do not need to be morally certain in order to fight in a war. The commonly accepted general principle among just war theorists is that soldiers should presume that a war they are sent to fight in is just, giving their leaders the benefit of the doubt. That presumption can be overridden – hence, if soldiers are absolutely certain that the aim of a war is unjust, they should not fight in it. But if they are merely doubtful about the justice of a war, they should nevertheless obey their leaders and fight in it. However, even in this case, they would still be obligated (as they are even in a just war) not to obey individual commands that are manifestly immoral (e.g. if ordered intentionally to kill non-combatants)."

      https://x.com/i/status/2032205902175224276

      Delete
  5. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 2:23 AM

    I absolutely agree Edward.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 3:33 AM

    "in the case of Venezuela, while Nicolas Maduro was removed, his regime remains in place and the country’s people are, so far, no freer."

    This article from CNN of all places, written by someone living and reporting on Venezuela since 2016, says that there are some positives happening that are "like nothing I have seen before", although admitting that there is still a long way to go: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/17/americas/venezuela-delcy-wright-energy-intl-latam

    In short:

    - The new leader, Rodriguez, sat in the same vehicle with US Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, with minimal staff. As they went to visit oil fields, she spoke English to him when, previously, politicians across the board would be fearful of doing that.

    - Rodriguez has installed an entirely new economic leadership team, seeking to build ties with US and European companies, granting new licenses to them in February, and is seeking positive relations with the last remaining entrepreneurs in the country.

    - student protesters are, for now, back on the streets freely protesting in various cities.

    - The article reports on Juan Pablo Guanipa, the opposition leader being released, after 8 months in prison, but then re-arrested on Feb 9th for breaching the terms of his release. However, just days after this article, an amnesty law was signed by Rodriguez which freed Guanipa along with 100s of others.

    So, things do seem a bit freer, while acknowledging that much more needs to happen. But, in just 2 months, this seems like pretty solid improvements, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. MichaelMarch 12, 2026 at 6:37 AM

    Yes, it seems more obvious ever day that the war with Iran is unjust. Trump's plan to incite a civil war without offering any military support is especially egregious. Hopefully the Kurds have learned better than to listen to the Americans and we don't have a repeat of Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  8. EXEMarch 12, 2026 at 7:41 AM

    See, it's not that Ed is wrong here, it's that he sees only part of the truth. The part he's missing is that this is not really a new development. America's wars have largely been just as amoral as Russia or China's, it's just that in the past they propagandized for them better. The Iran War does not represent America suddenly dropping its moral standards, it represents a dropping of the mask instead, no longer bothering to hide behind the veneer of false moral superiority. Despite its personal mythology, the USA is not an especially moral power on the world stage, and it never has been. It is an Empire, and acts according to the incentives that all Empires face - get more resources, get more subjects, exploit colonies for the benefit of the heartland (or maybe just the corrupt ruling oligarchy). Note that I do not claim it is a uniquely evil player either, I am just pointing out that America cares about Just War Theory about as much as any empire does, that is to say not at all. This war is motivated by political and economic factors large and powerful enough that it would take a superlatively virtuous leader to choose justice over appeasing those interests, and even if you had such a leader, they would quickly be destroyed by their unwillingness to play the dirty game of politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 12, 2026 at 1:25 PM

      Agreed, EXR. Trump's advisers and the Israelis thought Iran was weaker than it had ever been and that this would be the best opportunity to attack and do real damage. If Iran is significantly weakened so that it ceases to harm its own people ceases to be a threat to Israel, then Trump wins. If the war spirals out of control with no end in sight, then Trump loses. But before that happens, he will declare victory and withdraw.

      Delete
    2. BillyMarch 12, 2026 at 3:46 PM

      "It is an Empire, and acts according to the incentives that all Empires face - get more resources, get more subjects, exploit colonies for the benefit of the heartland (or maybe just the corrupt ruling oligarchy)."

      If that were entirely true, America would own half of Europe, much of South America and parts of the middle east. The US would simply have Greenland right now. Can you explain why it doesn't?

      Delete
    3. El poni albinegroMarch 12, 2026 at 6:02 PM

      "Harms their own people" is such a useless excuse after the false flag of 9/11 and ICE's murder of a guy and a woman 🥀

      Delete
    4. OA PoliceMarch 13, 2026 at 4:21 AM

      @eExe, I don't disagree with that assessment of American foreign policy, especially since Bush the First, but I think the assumption of that attitude about "worldly politics" actually legitimises the problem--if persons enter into politics with the expectation that they *have* to be amoral self-serving Realpolitikers because everyone else is/they won't survive if they aren't, then one can hardly be surprised that politics is full of amoral self-serving Realpolitikers.

      Delete
    5. EXEMarch 13, 2026 at 11:52 AM

      @Billy:

      It DOES own half the world! It just realized that it's easier to do so through soft power rather than through overt imperalism - well, it realised that before Trump came on the scene, because Trump is an idiot. What do you think a Sphere of Influence is? America wrote the rules of the "Rules Based International Order", they are essentially an invisible system that enables American hegemony across the globe. You don't need to plant the Stars and Stripes across South and Central America when economic leverage, targeted CIA interference, and the threat of potential military intervention if anyone ever gets too far out of line will do the job. The dollar's status as international reserve currency effectively lets you export your debt to other countries as a commodity, a supreme economic privilege that no other country enjoys. You have a network of military based all over the planet and are the leader of the largest military alliance in history, or you were before (again) Trump pissed all of that away out of a bizarre sense that your vassal network was somehow exploiting you. That turns Europe, Japan, and Korea into sources of military and economic power rather than drains on the economy. Really, it was quite an ingenious system. I could go on, but the basics should be clear by now - American Empire is informal rather than formal, but it nonetheless is Empire. An arrangement where you can do whatever you like to (say) South America while they just have to grin and bear it is not meaningfully distinct from a situation where South America is a colony.

      Delete
    6. BillyMarch 14, 2026 at 6:49 AM

      EXE,

      "It DOES own half the world!"

      So, why weren't other NATO members paying their agreed percentage of GDP to NATO? Sure doesn't seem like America owns them, does it? Since Trump came in, NATO members have began doing so and NATO is now stronger than ever. NATO is probably at it's strongest point, in terms of military readiness and collective power, in it's history right now. It may not be Trump's intention, but it's the result nonetheless. But the point is, they don't behave like vassal states to America at all.

      When Germany decided to give a significant portion of control over it's energy supply to Russia, how exactly is that America owning Germany? America didn't even do anything about it. Trump, at the UN in 2018 IIRC told them how stupid it was, and they ignorantly laughed at him. But sure, that's because America is in control, right?

      Was it America's plan for all these nations, that America supposedly own through soft power, to establish free trade deals with China, India, Vietnam, etc?

      As for South America, what soft power does America have over any of these nations?

      It doesn't seem like America owns any of these nations, formally or informally. It seems like America let these nations be independent, to do things that are not beneficial to America, but are beneficial to America's enemies...but these same nations wouldn't b*tch and moan when America doesn't protect them and pay their bills.

      Delete
    7. OA PoliceMarch 14, 2026 at 11:50 AM

      @Billy,

      They don’t behave like vassal states to Trump’s America. But Trump was elected-twice!—on a mandate to stop the kind of Neo-Conservative “world-leading” that had dominated US foreign policy since Bush the Elder. “America First” was literally a negation of that kind of interventionism—I remember the first time round when even Left-leaning voters were worried Hillary would start a war with Russia. The hope wasn’t that Trump would force NATO members to pay more—the hope was he would disband the whole thing entirely and pivot towards a defense allience focusing on South-East Asia.

      In Europe up until Covid both the Far Left and the medium Right were traditionally opposed to NATO, which they saw as a US tool to pen in Russia, not out of safety concerns, but out of Geopolitical rivalry. Whatever one thinks of Putin, not everyone in Europe by far supports Greater Zelensky, who isn’t even a member of damned NATO. Allegedly we have Biden and Boris Johnson to thank for this.

      Delete
    8. EXEMarch 15, 2026 at 7:05 AM

      Billy:

      Vassal states are not always docile and obedient, in fact they are almost never such, because few people are really okay with vassalage. America generally tolerates such indiscretions because stopping them would be more trouble than it's worth. But you'll notice that when a state goes too far against American interests, the boot comes down. Cuba has been placed under economic siege for decades, an armed takeover was attempted (the Bay of Pigs), and the only reason why a more substantial invasion hasn't happened yet is because the decision-makers calculated that it was better not to.

      If you think that a nation can't be vassals just because they aren't slavishly obedient, then all you're displaying is your own lack of imagination.

      Delete
    9. EXEMarch 16, 2026 at 2:28 PM

      Oh, and don't forget Panama, Operation Condor, the fact that the Iranian democracy was overthrown in order to preserve Western oil profits...America usually prefers to use the CIA to do its violence upon foreign countries, whenever that's possible.

      Delete
  9. Paul D. Van PeltMarch 12, 2026 at 7:54 AM

    The reasonings and justifications for war are often confusing and contradictory. We have "hawks", on-the-hunt, and "hornets" buzzing, because of the chaotic logic of a world leader---and, I use that term loosely.
    Hitler and Hirihito(?) were vain maniacs; I never figured out what to make of Mussolini. But vain mania remains transgenerational. Every time 'round, there are dozens, trying to exert influence and make names for themselves. I call it constituitive reality, an infection that only grows stronger.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul D. Van PeltMarch 12, 2026 at 2:47 PM

    OK. I thought this forum was pretty balanced, Guess not.

    ReplyDelete
  11. TalmidMarch 12, 2026 at 9:01 PM

    Interesting post. I expect heated discussions, of course.

    Now, Dr Feser, suppose that i'am the average young american and the war escalates to a level that a draft is necessary and i find myself called. Since i believe the war is unjust, does the State have the authority to require that i fight or i can in good conscience refuse it?

    I do not expect it to happen*, but it is a dark thought this of becoming part of someting like that.


    *or even if does, to personally affect me, quite away from it all

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 13, 2026 at 11:40 AM

      Ain't gonna be no draft! The GOP would be destroyed in the midterms.

      Delete
    2. TalmidMarch 16, 2026 at 8:46 PM

      That seems completely true. I was just asking on a philosophical level.

      Fortunately, Dr. Feser adressed a similar question, as posted by Norm on another place.

      Delete
  12. Paul D. Van PeltMarch 13, 2026 at 8:01 AM

    Well, upon further reflection(s), I conclude (or, maybe, only infer) that " just war" depends on whom one is talking to, attacker or attackee. For example, Mr. Putin would assert his attack on Ukraine is expedient: he wants annexation and access to wealth. He did not fear interference, and has not received much. This is Imperialism+. "just war" is not in Putin's lexicon. Conquest is the objective. Talk to Mr. Zelensky; you get a far different view. This is, as asserted, *constituative reality*. According to Putin, "Ukraine is ours". The inference to this is, stop me, if you dare.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousMarch 13, 2026 at 11:45 AM

    Secretary of War Peter Hegseth literally said God is on our side and therefore our cause is just.
    https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/13/politics/hegseth-iran-israel-war-american-crusade-analysis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 14, 2026 at 9:40 PM

      Hegseth in the article literally DIDN'T say God is on our side therefore our cause is just.

      In spite of the article starting out sort-of, kind-of reporting, where they report his actual words (if they got them right), by the end of the article CNN is doing a hit-job on Christian nationalism that isn't even remotely reporting, it's editorializing in the worst way. But even so, CNN isn't claiming he said God is on our side.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 15, 2026 at 3:03 PM

      He didn't need to SAY it literally. You can infer it. But in a book he wrote, he did SAY it literally. From the article. The book quote at the end.
      “Our capabilities are better. Our will is better. Our troops are better. The providence of our almighty God is there protecting those troops, and we’re committed to this mission,” he said."
      “America was founded as a Christian nation,” he said at a recent National Prayer Breakfast. “It remains a Christian nation in our DNA, if we can keep it,"
      “Not only are we warriors armed with the arsenal of freedom, we ultimately are armed with the arsenal of faith"
      In “American Crusade,” he wrote that the US faces a “crusade moment” that echoes the 11th-century Christian invasion of the Holy Land."
      “We don’t want to fight, but, like our fellow Christians one thousand years ago, we must,”
      In February, Hegseth invited his pastor Doug Wilson, a Christian nationalist who wants the US to be a Christian theocracy, to address the US military.
      In a book he wrote, HE DID literally say God is on our side:
      In The War on Warriors, Hegseth notes that Gideon was imperfect, and fell prey to personal vengeance, but that he ultimately enjoyed divine grace and was named one of the heroes of the faith. “When we maintain our covenant, we are Gideon,” he concluded. “God on our side, heroism and victory in our future."




      Delete
  14. The Great Thurible of DarknessMarch 13, 2026 at 7:23 PM

    Here's a question: Assuming you're correct (and I think you are), does this mean Christian soldiers should refuse to fight in the Iran War? Even if it means being court-martialed? And what about ordinary citizens in the United States? What are we supposed to do about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormMarch 14, 2026 at 1:21 AM

      I posted Prof's reply to what I think was a similar question above about soldiers.

      It's funny that we at this blog are now reduced to posting Prof's twitter replies. We are now second hand netizens ,:(

      Delete
    2. The Great Thurible of DarknessMarch 14, 2026 at 2:00 PM

      Ahh, thanks Norm. You're a very responsible netizen.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 14, 2026 at 2:04 PM

      The Prof does not engage with his readers as he once did.

      Delete
    4. Edward FeserMarch 15, 2026 at 12:48 AM

      Trying to do it more. Too many irons in the fire!

      Delete
    5. Edward FeserMarch 15, 2026 at 12:52 AM

      I should add that I do engage more on Twitter, which is more conducive to that because it just takes far, far less time. But I would like to (and now and again have) engaged more here as well. Because the comments are longer here, they tend to be more substantive, but the downside is that it just takes far more time to go through them and I don't have enough time as it is for all the other commitments I have. Trying to muddle through.

      Delete
    6. NormMarch 15, 2026 at 1:57 PM

      Hi Prof

      I completely understand. And as someone who often does tend to insist on a reply, allow me to say that your other commitments ought to always take priority no matter what. I completely respect that.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousMarch 15, 2026 at 2:16 PM

      I know, Dr. Feser. You have books you're writing, papers you're writing, papers you're grading, faculty work/meetings, family obligations, etc. And, of course, working on your vast collection of comic books

      Delete
  15. AnonymousMarch 14, 2026 at 6:34 AM

    I agree entirely with every word of this article and of the precedent post about the same argument. What I cannot understand is the reason Usa administration began such an enterprise whose risks vastly outcome only possible but far for certain benefits, all the mora that it was done against the electoral promises.

    ReplyDelete
  16. John BruceMarch 14, 2026 at 9:31 AM

    I'm increasingly convinced that "just war doctrine" is a category error. As General Sherman said, "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. . . . You might as well appeal against the thunder storm as against these terrible hardships of war." https://mthollywood1.blogspot.com/2026/03/secretary-hegseth-channels-general.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 14, 2026 at 2:12 PM

      Yep, John Bruce, Sherman burned the Deep South as he marched through it to end that damn war that killed more Americans than all our wars combined. And the atomic bombing of Japan helped shortened WW2 as did the fire bombing of Germany.

      Delete
  17. AnonymousMarch 14, 2026 at 4:02 PM

    Trump begs for money for war, dishonoring fallen soldiers. Promises "special national security briefings" Disgraceful.
    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-79-uses-jaw-dropping-044656133.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. TonyMarch 14, 2026 at 7:26 PM

    The general case Ed makes in this article is good. The Administration and other top Republicans are doing a lot of fumbling and mis-steps in explaining what we are about and why. It leads to the conclusion that they don't know. And that's no way to start a war.

    I remain unconvinced that Trump doesn't have any idea of an objective, even if he hasn't articulated a clear objective (which he should have done). Just blowing things up isn't really in Trump's style. Much more likely is that his real objective is to defang China, and (for some reason) he doesn't want to say this part out loud. But that's a problem in a democracy. You can't just go to war and not discuss it with Congress and the people.

    On the other hand, I can't quite get behind the sentiment described at the end:

    the Catholic scholar of natural law John Eppstein states in The Catholic Tradition of the Law of Nations: “War may not be waged on the personal authority of the sovereign, but only after the advice of wise and impartial men has been sought, and after the claims of the opposing side have been carefully weighed.”

    This aligns with NOTHING I have ever read in the just war tradition. In the cases of true kings and emperors, they HAVE IN FACT gone to war on their own counsel, and this includes popes. And at the time, no stated theology told them they hadn't the authority to so declare war. Maybe it is sound political thinking that with such a momentous decision, it should always be undertaken with the counsel of the best men in the state. Good, prudent thinking. But that's under a different standard than the criterion in Just War Theory as to requiring the war be decided upon by the lawful authority. If a state's organization puts that lawful authority in one man's hands, (even if that's an imprudent way to arrange things), then HE can lawfully act alone to declare the war.

    There has been a shift, over perhaps the last 80 years or so, within a certain stripe of Catholic political works, to imply (usually without saying it explicitly) that only democratic forms are truly acceptable as political systems, all others are immoral or violate nature. This is not the true traditional teaching of natural law, which allows for other governmental forms. St. Thomas's "On Kingship" exemplifies this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 15, 2026 at 2:11 PM

      China will never be "de-fanged."

      Delete
    2. TonyMarch 15, 2026 at 8:49 PM

      You might be right. But that doesn't mean Trump can't intend for that to happen.

      On the other hand, the British Empire made inroads on China's control of its own areas of influence in southeast China, this external pressure combined with internal pressure led to the 1911 revolution, and China took several decades to regain something approaching a well-fanged capacity to push its neighbors around. What happened once might happen again, and "never" is a long, long time. I fully expect the US to be defanged at some point in the future, though nobody can predict it clearly now. Nations and empires fall.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 16, 2026 at 11:56 AM

      All empires do indeed fall. The Western Roman Empire lasted roughly 500 years; the Eastern Roman Empire roughly 1000 years. Some ancient Roman roads, aqueducts, bridges and sewage systems are still in use today.

      Delete
  19. OA PoliceMarch 15, 2026 at 8:24 AM

    It will be interesting to see if the crude heretical religious exultations of Paula White and co in support of this war have the effect of empowering another crop of New Atheist rubbish.

    This is ironic as the standpoint of multiple popes on Israel e.g. that it has a right to exist within borders recognised by international law and must comport itself in accordance with such, is the most neutral one by the standards of secular reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AnonymousMarch 15, 2026 at 8:52 AM

    So many problems here, but so little time. I’m extremely grateful that Dr Feser doesn’t have military control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormMarch 15, 2026 at 1:53 PM

      If you are glad that one of the most sane and reasonable commentators on the planet doesnt have control of the military, then you are utterly clueless about the state of affairs.

      I have never seen someone in my life more commited to reason then Dr Feser.

      The world would be a better place if he were in proximity to power.

      Delete
    2. OA PoliceMarch 15, 2026 at 2:56 PM

      It would be indeed terrible anonymous commentator--he would probably bomb Nowherestan and declare as many American service men must die as there are members of the empty set.

      Delete
    3. MattSimmonsMarch 16, 2026 at 5:12 PM

      Would you be kind enough to point out the biggest problem you see with the article? Just that one?

      Delete
  21. AnonymousMarch 15, 2026 at 2:58 PM

    Even though the basic article is good, it could have been better. For example, Feser could have refrained from repeating the false narrative that "no WMDs were found in Iraq". The truth is that while some modest amounts of chemical bombs, and chemicals for such bombs, were eventually found, they probably dated from pre-1991 and were in poor condition. For the record, that's "some", not "none". Also, a number of soldiers were injured by the chemicals in investigating and disposing the bombs and material, and (according to the NYT no less) were told to keep quiet about it and were not properly treated medically. Iraq may not have had an effective military-level WMD program in 2003, and that would have massively affected the "just cause" aspect of the attempt to justify the war, but just stop already with the error that "none were found".

    (Iraq also had several million dollars worth of uranium yellowcake - eventually sold after the war to a Canadian company: it might have played a role in the future development of weapons-grade nuclear material, but that doesn't mean it was WMD yet.)

    But in the case of Venezuela, while Nicolas Maduro was removed, his regime remains in place and the country’s people are, so far, no freer.

    Not enough has changed, certainly. But it's not simply true that "the people are no freer.

    On the other hand, between January 8 and March 8, 2026, human rights organizations have verified the release from prison of at least 659 people. Among those released are journalists, human rights defenders, and opposition leaders, some of whom have returned to public life. Some leaders who were in hiding have resumed their activism. Civil society has reclaimed some of its spaces, testing how far it can go, and reclaiming the role of universities, unions, and the media.

    ReplyDelete
  22. AnonymousMarch 17, 2026 at 6:21 AM

    Feser quotes the Catholic Catechism, which states: “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated” (2309)
    My question here is: evils for whom? For yourself or for your enemies?

    Further, it seems to me that any country operating under Feser's interpretation of Natural Law is on the losing end, especially if its enemies know this. How can you effectively destroy your enemies if they know that you are limited by the principles of Natural Law?

    Moreover, the case can be made that Iran is already at war with the US since the time that the Ayatollahs took power. Their network of international proxies and terrorists is astounding and has harmed American interests time and again.

    And here is the capper: It would be immensely stupid to let Iran produce so many missiles that their nuclear program is essentially shielded from foreign attacks. This was one of the main reasons to do something about it right now. One of the main adagia of international politics and warfare is that you should kill giants while they are still small.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)