Thursday, April 2, 2026

Contra White and Graham

From Twitter/X, on the comments made at the White House yesterday by Paula White and Franklin Graham:

Posted by at

187 comments:

  1. bmillerApril 2, 2026 at 1:38 PM

    I don't mean this as an attempt to justify US or Israeli action but I have a Just War question as it applies to Iran.

    It appears that Iran has no hope of winning and by continuing to resist they are allowing death and destruction they could avoid by agreeing to peace. Even though they were not the aggressor is it true that they are in the wrong according to Just War theory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyApril 2, 2026 at 3:33 PM

      Unfortunately, I suspect that the answer is quite complicated, primarily by the question of "what constitutes 'a win'?" They have no prospect of overcoming the US forces within the US. They have no plausible hope of a successful battlefield where they meet the US forces in battle in Iran and win. They cannot plausibly project a clear situation in the near future where the US caves in and ceases to make demands at a negotiation table.

      On the other hand, like in Iraq, they may have plausible hope of ongoing insurrection and resistance in asymmetrical warfare, guerilla warfare, and outright terrorism. They may hope for a protracted period of occupation where they push the cost of occupation ever higher, and eventually get a weak president with a weak Congress willing to depart under any terms at all, even dishonorably and at great (unnecessary) cost to the US - like Biden fleeing Afghanistan with his empty scrotum between his legs.

      If they were to undertake this level of difficulty and long-range planning on the basis of a true religious spirit and in service of the true religion (like the Maccabees did) this would appear to be just. Of course, doing it on the basis of their own power mongering and a false religion compounds the difficulty of the analysis. But generally, since under just war theory it is only ever possible that ONE side is justly entering into the war, but it is possible that BOTH are unjustly going to war, we can infer that they are unjustly extending the war even if also the US is unjust. In particular, since they could end the war by giving up unjust objectives of using violence to make other nations kneel to (their version of) Islam, a false religion, yes, their refusal to yield is unjust.

      Delete
    2. bmillerApril 2, 2026 at 6:38 PM

      The US is not asking them to give up their religion, just their ability to make nuclear weapons. OK, that and to stop funding groups that stage violent attacks against the US and an ally of the US.

      Those may have been desirable goals for the regime, but it's not like the demands were for enslavement of their people, all or most of their wealth. It would have been pretty much business as usual with the bonus of removal of the sanctions if they agreed.

      So it would seem that right intention, last resort and a reasonable chance of success would be in question wrt Iran at the beginning and not attacking non-combatants after it began.

      Maybe they hope the US will try to occupy so they can win by attrition over time but I doubt that will happen. I suppose if their criteria of success is just to avoid getting their nuclear material taken from them they succeed in that at least for now.

      Delete
    3. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 2:23 AM

      Tony, what universe are you living in?

      Of course Iran can win. Iran's win condition is to choke-hold the Strait of Hormuz until the global economy suffocates and America is forced to back off. They have no need to blow up stuff in the United States itself. And if you seriously believe that they have no chance of defeating American forces that deploy to Iran, then you're drunk on propaganda. They have a million-strong army and more paramilitary forces, not to mention an extensive array of missiles and Shahed Drones. The country is twice as populous as Iraq and is filled with mountains rather than floodplains. The simple fact is that if American forces deploy to Iran, they are going to die en masse. Your understanding of the combat situation is utterly laughable. Maybe stop getting your news from Truth Social.

      Delete
    4. TonyApril 3, 2026 at 12:13 PM

      You have some interesting points. But my pessimistic outlooks for Iran battle-wise were actually quite limited. In spite of what you point out about the mountains and their large army, I don't think that they can win any specific set-piece battle - even in the mountains - because I doubt the US generals will be stupid enough to commit to a specific battlefield engagement they won't win pretty handily. Mere troop numbers is not sufficient: modern battlefield warfare is a complex integration of air, artillery, and ground forces, and Iran will be lacking at least the first of those, probably the first and second.

      What the US could indeed lose is a protracted campaign that amounts to really a stalemate that results in a negative cost/benefit ratio: any time the US can bring a lot of Iranian soldiers to one spot, the US can kill them, but the rest of the time the US loses a few here and a few there in attrition to...asymmetric warfare and guerilla warfare, where the Iranians intelligently avoid a set-piece battlefield.

      The simple fact is that if American forces deploy to Iran, they are going to die en masse.

      Are you OK with them dying in bits and pieces, instead? That's far more plausible. Which is one of the many reasons I think we shouldn't go in with massive troops, and indeed shouldn't have begun this war.

      not to mention an extensive array of missiles and Shahed Drones.

      I doubt that Iran is going to continue to be able to manufacture its missiles, and maybe not its Shahed drones. If you think that's a given, that unquestionably they will be able to continue, I don't see why you would be justified in that confidence.

      Iran's win condition is to choke-hold the Strait of Hormuz until the global economy suffocates and America is forced to back off.

      That is a critical point. I don't pretend to know what US strategy is for this. I also don't pretend to know "the US cannot possibly have a strategy for this problem". There are many more possible pathways than "Iran's threat forces US to back down and leave the region". I think it very likely that it is Iran that will have to cave to the economic pressure first. 20% of the world's oil passes through the Strait, but (a) other sources can ramp up their supply, (b) 20% of the oil usually going through Hormuz could go through Suez, (c) a lot of the rest goes to China (including over 80% of Iran's oil), and (d) 50% of Iran gov't's revenue comes from its oil exports, (and 25% of its economy uses Hormuz), so other than China, arguably Iran's going to suffer more than anyone else, by a large margin. Maybe they can weather it, but it's not obvious they can.

      But because the US is not the economy primarily going to be affected by this, (only 2% of its oil goes through Hormuz), this problem is not of a sort to make the US simply throw in the towel, leave the region, and "and ceases to make demands at a negotiation table", which is the limited claim I indicated.

      Maybe stop getting your news from Truth Social.

      Since I have neither a Truth Social nor a Twitter account, and get 0% of my news that way, your notion is empty. Maybe I am not completely informed on Iran's military details. Maybe you aren't either.

      Delete
    5. bmillerApril 3, 2026 at 7:36 PM

      The customers for oil shipped via the Strait of Hormutz are not the only ones affected by Iran attempting to close it. The oil producing countries in the region are being squeezed as well and they don't appear to be on the side of Iran. I read that Saudia Arabia was preparing to enter the war to make sure they can ship their product. Of course I assume that very little news that is being spewed is 100% true.

      Delete
    6. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 7:25 AM

      "modern battlefield warfare is a complex integration of air, artillery, and ground forces, and Iran will be lacking at least the first of those, probably the first and second."

      This is correct. So where are you going to launch such an enormous force from? An army large enough and well-supplied enough to do what you're describing would require enormous amounts of logistical support and a vast staging grounds from which to launch. The Gulf Arab states are unlikely to accept the enormous influx of American soldiers that would be necessary for this, especially given that such sites would be sitting ducks for further Iranian missile strikes (they've already hit American bases in the region). Even if you could get them to agree, though, there are a lot of other problems:

      For one, getting enough supplies to those building-up troops would be difficult and dangerous, as the Houthis can threaten shipping going through the Bab-el-Mandeb and Iran can strike anyone coming through Hormuz. Iran's southern coast is rough and mountainous, so trying to launch a straight-up naval invasion would be a meatgrinder. It'd make the beaches of Normandy look like a picnic. The land routes into Iran are from the North (Russian sphere of influence, that's never gonna happen), the East (Pakistan and Afghanistan, that's never gonna happen), and the West (that would require re-invading Iraq and dealing with yet another Iraqi insurgency before you even get to trying to take on Iran). There simply are no good invasion routes. This isn't even getting into the fact that American naval support/naval reinforcements have to pass through the Strait, which is so narrow that land-launched rockets can easily reach any ship traversing it. Any navy group that tries to support an invasion would be at serious risk of getting a fierce beating and losing ships outright.

      Even if you were able to secure a beach-head in Iran, you'd then face the logistical nightmare that is keeping supply lines alive all the way to Tehran (or wherever you had to advance to win). You'd effectively be marching from deathtrap to deathtrap, at immense cost in American blood and treasure each time. Maybe if it was still 2003, and rah-rah patriotism was in full bloom, you could convince America to stomach that cost, but that ship has sailed. This war is already the most unpopular one in American history, there isn't a hope in hell that you can force Iran to surrender before domestic political pressure becomes overwhelming.

      Delete
    7. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 7:47 AM

      I split this comment off from the other one I made, because I think it deserves to be treated individually rather than being lost amidst logistical discussions. That is, the idea that America might have a strategy to re-open the Strait, and that their failure to do so doesn't mean they can't. This is quite frankly silly. If America could plausibly re-open the strait, they would have already done it by now. There is no reason to wait. Quite frankly, the lack of a good way to keep the Strait open is a big part of the reason why no previous President attempted anything like this. Saudi pipelines can at most recoup a fifth of the loss, not even close to enough. Plus, pipelines take a long time to build and are infamously soft targets. They can't move, are very big, are filled with flammable liquid, and destroying any part of them makes the whole thing useless. Iran could easily sabotage what mitigation efforts do exist and make things EVEN WORSE.

      Also, there is absolutely no way that Iran taps out first. For them, this is a war of survival, an existential struggle against a hated and treacherous adversary. Thanks to Trump's little trick of pretending to negotiate and then sneak attacking them after making a deal, they are never, ever going to trust any promise America makes. Therefore they have no reason to believe you will honor your word, and will not accept a peace deal that does not involve significant material concessions which are not reliant on America keeping its word.

      Speaking of their economy - what economic pressure? Trump's bungling led him to unsanction a bunch of Iranian oil to keep the price down:

      https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d415g55nno

      On top of that, Iran is now establishing a system of tolls where countries need to pay in order to secure safe transit through Hormuz, something that was not in place before the war. Making things even worse, they are requiring those paying such tolls to do so in Chinese Yuan rather than dollars, posing a serious threat to the petrodollar. If that collapses? Goodbye American Empire.

      https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2026/04/02/china-ships-iran-hormuz/

      Delete
    8. TonyApril 4, 2026 at 12:12 PM

      Also, there is absolutely no way that Iran taps out first. For them, this is a war of survival, an existential struggle against a hated and treacherous adversary.

      I respect that this may be an accurate depiction of the thinking of the former (and parts of) the current leadership. But that doesn't mean it reflects the thinking of the whole Iranian population. From the immense protests of the last months, and the widespread joy with which (some) people received the news of the former Ayatollah Khamenei's demise, it is apparent that many in Iran don't feel the same way. Trump has made it pretty clear that the threat is "existential" to leadership that wants to promote terrorism abroad and hold a nuclear threat over others, and NOT an existential threat to the Iranian people nor their Islamic faith or traditions.

      Delete
    9. EXEApril 6, 2026 at 12:32 PM

      "But that doesn't mean it reflects the thinking of the whole Iranian population"

      I'll grant that a lot of the Iranian population dislikes the regime. There has been considerable pushback, and there was indeed a very real opportunity to unseat the Ayatollah via popular uprising. That opportunity was in January of this year, and it has since passed. Trump and Israel, by their duplicity and the savagery of their attacks, have utterly squandered that chance. Now? Young Iranians didn't understand why their parents and grandparents hated Israel and the US so vehemently; now they do. Like the Ayatollah or hate him, the overwhelming majority of Iranians now prefer him to the "liberators" who attack after promising peace, who bomb schoolchildren, and who have no qualms about threatening to directly attack civilian targets like power plants, bridges, and desalination plants (all of which would be unambiguous war crimes, by the way). It's my personal hope that Trump lives long enough to be ousted from power, then, instead of being let go, gets extradited to the Hague to be tried for his crimes. That kind of public justice will be necessary to heal the world after all is said and done.

      "Trump has made it pretty clear that the threat is "existential" to leadership that wants to promote terrorism abroad and hold a nuclear threat over others, and NOT an existential threat to the Iranian people nor their Islamic faith or traditions."

      Only MAGA folk believe any of the words that come out of Trump's mouth anymore. Certainly, the average Iranian citizen will not. That's the cost of being a compulsive liar.

      Just to cap this discussion off, I will clarify that I don't "like" the regime of the Ayatollahs and am not a fan of their repression or religious fundamentalism. I treat them as the one who is in the right in this specific instance, the lesser of two evils, much like how the US treated the Soviet Union during WW2.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 3:02 PM

    Thanks, Ed. Your stuff, as well as the Pope's and some others' comments, has really helped me see this conflict through a more Catholic perspective. I really appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 5:34 PM

    I would say that attacks of civilian populations oftentimes is simply a necessity of war. It can be effective, because it demoralizes the enemy, who has nothing left fighting for. Sometimes, and certainly in Gaza, the enemy hides under schools, kindergartens, hospitals, &c, and intends its own children to get slaughtered in the fight for the sake of thus making a big spectacle in the press.

    For Israel the present wars are a matter of win or die and in that situation anything goes. No nation is ever obligated to commit suicide, and certainly not Israel.

    As to the US-Iran war, Iran has been at warfare with the US since the Ayatollahs seized power. They have built a network of terror all over the planet and deserve to be destroyed, especially since their development of long range missiles (ICBMs) capable for nuclear warheads. This is vital US interest and cannot be neglected.

    There are other elements I agree with. I don't think that the US necessarily has the backing of divine providence with this war against Iran, but I don't think in this terminology. To me it is all a matter of power and interests, that's the way of the world and nobody can do anything about it. Who are your friends in world politics? Those who help you, or whose interests are aligned. Who are your enemies? Those who work against you. That's all and what to do is just help your friends and harm your enemies in order to continue your own existence. Why all the moral fuss? It doesn't apply to international relations. If you apply morality international politics, you are dead before the next day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 3:19 AM

      "I would say that attacks of civilian populations oftentimes is simply a necessity of war. It can be effective, because it demoralizes the enemy"

      Conservatives justifying 9/11 will never not amuse me.

      Delete
    2. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 6:04 AM

      Israel is a settler-colonial apartheid regime that established itself through violent expulsion and killing of natives. It continues to kill natives to this day, and clearly has plans to expand its operations into Lebanon and (eventually) Syria. As far as I'm concerned, they have no right to be there, and I will shed no tears for it. "Nations" in the sense of nation-states (as apart from actual physical people) do not have lives or the right to life, so talk about "national suicide" is meaningless bluster. As for Iran, the one and only reason WHY they are a threat to you is specifically BECAUSE you support Israel. Saying "we need to fight Iran because they're a threat to our allies" is circular logic - that only works if you presume that America must be allied with Israel, despite the fact that they are objectively a parasite rather than an ally. They suck billions of dollars in aid from you, shape your foreign policy, and make you complicit in genocide. And for what? God's favor?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 8:24 AM

      Killing civilians definitely isn't a necessity to "demoralize" the enemy. That's doing something incredibly evil for the sake of a potentially minor, almost inconsequentially good outcome of "demoralizing" the enemy. If the enemy intentionally uses civilian settings like hospitals, schools, etc in order to use a human shield, then obviously, that's more complicated and on them if, in attempting to take out a general or something, a civilian or even several die as a result. Something like the principle of double effect would be at work there, I'd think

      Delete
    4. AnymouseApril 3, 2026 at 2:22 PM

      Conservatives justifying 9/11 will never not amuse me.

      There was nothing in the Anonymous of April 2, 2026 at 5:34 PM that spoke of conservati ve views. He expressed simple realpolitik, which is neither conservative nor liberal as such, though there are some on either side of the aisle who use it. It's not even distinctly neocon, (which, historically, was merely a set of liberals who moved somewhat conservative in either economics or foreign affairs, but not in their principles).

      Delete
    5. El poni albinegroApril 3, 2026 at 11:20 PM

      Anon 2:22, you are quite wrong. The 9/11 comment said multiple propaganda points which are used by conservatives (and I use that therm quite loosely) and thus is not irrational to believe this man is a conservative.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 5:45 AM

      “Israel is a settler-colonial apartheid regime that established itself through violent expulsion and killing of natives.“

      And you have the gall to claim you aren’t an antisemite.

      Delete
    7. EXEApril 6, 2026 at 12:38 PM

      Apparently facts are antisemitic now. Who'd have guessed?

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

      Delete
    8. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 6:38 PM

      Wow, like I’ve never heard of the Nakba. Am I to assume you never heard of the nearly one million Jews who were expelled after Israel gained its independence, most of whom promptly became “settlers” in your fevered imagination?

      Reprehensible antisemitism.

      Delete
    9. EXEApril 8, 2026 at 7:07 AM

      Huh. You didn't try denying the Nakba? Strange, that's usually the route you lot take. Well, the first problem is that the explulsion of Palestinians from Palestine was a specific event that took place between 1947-1949, carried out deliberately and by military force, destroying hundreds of villages and thousands of lives in the process. The "Reverse Nakba" was a gradual migration of Mizrahi Jews from the MENA region over the course of several decades. Were they pressured into doing so by rising anti-Jewish sentiment? Sometimes, but usually not. For many, the decision to migrate to Israel was a deeply personal one; they were not all poverty-stricken dwellers in dark caves and smoking pits. When Arab hostility did play a role, it was usually a specific reaction to what the Zionists were doing in Palestine - after all, these people had been living side by side for centuries in relative peace, why did they suddenly become more hostile to their Jewish populations from 1949 onwards? Almost as if some external event triggered that rise in sentiment, hm?

      Claiming that this slow, gradual migration is comparable to a violent and swift ethnic cleansing is a shameful false equivalence. Furthermore, when the Mizrahim actually arrived in Israel, they were treated badly by the deeply racist Ashkenazi establishment, which considered them primitive and "bad human material". So much for Jewish solidarity. This entire talking point relies on creating this racial binary of "Jews vs Arabs", when in reality, many of the Middle Eastern Jews had been living lifestyles and cultures largely indistinguishable from their Arab neighbors for centuries. You are trying to erase the rich Mizrahi Jewish cultural heritage in the service of your political project. Disgusting.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 3:03 PM

      You are positively leprous ethically. Nobody serious denies the expulsion of Palestinians. You, however, deny the equally grave expulsion of Jews, and then claim, risibly, that to acknowledge this is to deny Jewish heritage. Do you also deny, for that matter, the population transfers in South Asia, or Turkey, or Poland?

      Pathetic that you try to contrast the one violent expulsion of Arabs with the decades of anti-Jewish persecution in multiple countries throughout the Middle East. Utterly risible.

      Delete
  4. ficino4mlApril 2, 2026 at 5:40 PM

    A well-aimed diatribe, Professor Feser.
    Who is White?
    @Tony: at this point in public discourse, I don't think cracks about Biden's scrotum are helpful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyApril 3, 2026 at 10:09 AM

      I will admit it was a harsh comment, perhaps just a bit over the top. I don't believe, however, that the timing matters in the least. Biden may well be in his (now admitted) dotage at this point (though, apparently, some in the media STILL reject this), his actions regarding Afghanistan and the withdrawal were taken before that, in the first year of his presidency, and at that time they were grievously cowardly along with imprudent and damaging to US interests.

      Should we respectfully not critique his cowardice for the rest of his life, and THEN attack him for that failing, only once he is dead? (Well, waiting for a seemly period after his burial?) Biden won't last that long, but Jimmy Carter lived 43 years after he left office, were we supposed to not critique his failings for all that time? Or supposed to STOP doing it when he became too old and feeble to reply? Public officials don't get that kind of kid-glove treatment.

      Still, in honor of your finer sense of decency, I hereby amend my comment to say "tail between his legs", an accepted metaphor regularly used for similar contexts.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 5:58 PM

    Dr. Feser is a fine philosopher, but his political commentary is largely abysmal. He should leave just war theory to the experts: James Turner Johnson, George Weigel, Nigel Biggar…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserApril 2, 2026 at 6:39 PM

      In my experience, people who make this sort of comment almost never offer any specifics or reasoned responses to my claims or arguments. It amounts to mere pouting and foot-stomping that I don't agree with their particular political views.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 7:54 PM

      Ah, we’ve got the classic Feser comeback! A tongue as sharp as his mind…

      No, Dr. F, the objections are manifold and complex. You seem not to be closely familiar with the distinction between preventive and preemptive, for one thing, but then again, neither are our Vatican overlords. You scarcely consider the long history of Iranian state aggression against American life and property, let alone against its own people. Your constitutional law is dubious, but that’s beside the point. If you confined your objections to right intention, you might have a decent case. But sadly you don’t, and thus we get such howlers as how the Iranian regime doesn’t/can’t pose an “imminent threat“ to the United States. Close to a thousand dead Americans over the past fifty years weren’t around for comment.

      I could go on. But I believe I have more than refuted your claim that my original comment suggested no more than “foot-stomping”.

      Delete
    3. Edward FeserApril 3, 2026 at 12:30 AM

      You seem not to be closely familiar with the distinction between preventive and preemptive, for one thing,

      In reality I've addressed it in several posts -- do a search. So, if you mean that I'm not familiar with it at all, that's a claim that easily falsified. If instead the "closely" bit is meant to imply that, while I'm familiar with it, I've somehow misunderstood it, then once again what we've got from you is merely yet another bit of unsupported drive-by foot stomping (if you'll allow the mixed metaphor).

      You scarcely consider the long history of Iranian state aggression against American life and property,

      In fact I have addressed that on Twitter, though perhaps not here. In any event, unless you tell us exactly how this is relevant to specific points I've made here, then once again we've got mere vague assertions that refute nothing I've said.

      we get such howlers as how the Iranian regime doesn’t/can’t pose an “imminent threat“ to the United States. Close to a thousand dead Americans over the past fifty years weren’t around for comment.

      That's all very cute, but what I have actually said is that Iran poses no NUCLEAR threat, specifically, to the U.S. (as in, to the actual homeland). So your lame "gotcha" is (as I find is typical of the move when flung at me) nothing more than a revelation that you haven't read what I said very carefully.

      Don't wear your shoes out with the foot stomping.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 5:31 AM

      Ed, you’re a peach. Sadly, your wit has outrun your intellect on this one, and it’s readily apparent from your response. I’ve read enough of your work to know that when you’ve really got someone nailed down, you twist the screws (now that’s a mixed metaphor). The fact is, this response here rests more on pretty language than on facts. You’re out of your depth, man!

      1) You’re a philosopher, so you know as well as I do that “So, if you mean that I'm not familiar with [the preventive/preemptive distinction] at all, that's a claim that easily falsified” is a red herring, since that’s not the claim I made. The claim I made was specifically that you do not seem to be very familiar with the distinction, and it is easily defensible. And yet you don’t actually respond to it - we just get some felicitously-termed “drive-by foot-stomping” about how I haven’t actually made a serious claim. Yet I have and do. I have seen no grappling with you, for example, with the claims of Alberico Gentili on the nature of a credible threat. It is patently obvious to many, if not most people, that credible threat has been fulfilled. If you wish to have an actual discussion on this point, I’m more than willing, on condition that you nix the pretty language and play the man, which you have many times before.

      2) The fact that you’re on Twitter and I’m not explains a whole lot. That said, you originally claimed that the history of Iranian aggression was a pretext. Are you claiming that was a pretext for just cause or right intention? Trump just gave a major speech on this.

      3) Actually, this reveals that you haven’t “very carefully” reviewed your own work. In “The US War on Iran is Manifestly Unjust” [sic!], “nuclear” does not show up in the second paragraph, which discusses imminence, and “nuclear threat” only shows up in the third. The actual context for this is “The president presents a laundry list of past Iranian offenses, but he never took these to be a cause for war during his first administration, or for a wider war last year. They are obviously a pretext rather than the true casus belli,” which is separated from talk of the nuclear threat by both a paragraph break and a “nor”.

      We all love the Feser wit. I’ll return to some of your takedowns of DBH or Coyne with pleasure. But the vituperation with which you treat those who have even political disagreements with you is ample evidence of your, not my, “foot-stomping.”

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 9:34 AM

      Well said, Dr Feser. The comment about Iran and nuclear ballistic missiles and the danger to the U.S. is laughable. Israel is much closer to Iran. If it thought Iran was a nuclear threat to their country, they would remove that threat by any means necessary.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 12:04 PM

      They are. Duh.

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

      Anonymous
      Ed Feser is not "vituperative." I say this as someone who has been on this blog almost since its inception. You said Feser is "out of his depth." No. You are out of your league.
      And although Israel is fighting with the U.S. against Iran, if it believed Iran was an imminent threat to its existence with nuclear missiles, they would utterly destroy the country. Duh.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousApril 4, 2026 at 4:32 AM

      I too have been on this blog a very long time, and I have read enough of Feser to know that he is, contrary to your protestations, “vituperative.” The man cannot engage in friendly dispute when his blood is up.

      “You are out of your league” - don’t make me laugh. Ed ducked as soon as I brought receipts. The man’s a solid philosopher, but his politics are unimpressive.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousApril 4, 2026 at 11:59 AM

      That's all very cute, but what I have actually said is that Iran poses no NUCLEAR threat, specifically, to the U.S. (as in, to the actual homeland).

      First, it's not sufficient that Iran "poses no NUCLEAR threat to the US homeland." If they pose an imminent nuclear threat to our bases, say in Diego Garcia, or closer, in Saudi, that's a threat to the US and her soldiers that should be considered for "just cause" purposes, even if in a reduced way.

      Second, Iran's inability to send a missile to the US homeland is not sufficient to say it poses no nuclear threat to the homeland: did you ever hear of suitcase nuclear bombs? Or, they could beg an ICBM off of Russia or China.

      Third it is not enough to say that "they can't (yet) build a nuclear bomb" to establish that "they pose no nuclear threat to the homeland". Did you ever hear of dirty bombs? Manifestly, there is a real possibility of Iran using its (existing) nuclear material to seed a standard chemical bomb. If exploded in a city, it could kill thousands and make the city center unlivable.

      Your comment is too simplistic, lacking in details, lacking in thoroughness, and possibly your conclusion is more wrong than right about the "nuclear threat".

      Delete
    10. AnonymousApril 4, 2026 at 6:04 PM

      Anon, you need to remember this is Ed's blog. He doesn't publish every comment. He didn't have to publish yours. He could have let himself have the last word, but he let you have it. Vituperative is defined as "cruel, angry or abusive". The only person who angry is you. You said you brought "receipts" and Ed "ducked." No, your receipts were invalid and Ed had more things to do with his life.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 5:49 AM

      Anon2: I am well aware that this is Ed’s blog. Duh. You’re living in denial if you don’t think that Ed is sometimes vituperative. Ironic, too, that you, like Ed, don’t actually deal with the arguments I’ve presented.

      Ed Feser is a fine philosopher and a miserable commentator on foreign affairs, period. His knowledge of scholasticism does not seem to extend very far into just war theory. I do not deny that he knows it, but I do question the extent of his knowledge.

      Delete
    12. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 2:35 PM

      Anonymous the Duh. Again, Ed let you have the last word. Take it as a win. If you think his comment about "foot stomping and mere pouting" is vituperative, then your feelings are too delicate.
      As for him not dealing with the arguments you presented, why should he? This is not a blog where he goes back and forth with strangers in cyberspace. He has moved on and so should you.

      Delete
    13. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 6:04 PM

      Your remarks are unnecessary. I challenged Ed with concrete objections. He declined to engage with them. Disappointing as it is, those are the facts.

      Delete
    14. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 8:51 AM

      “I challenged Ed with concrete objections.”

      What were they? I didn’t see any.

      Delete
    15. JordanApril 7, 2026 at 9:11 AM

      It has always amazed me that Feser's blog and twitter attracts such low quality "Anonymous" / "first name followed by numbers" commenters.

      You have to assume Feser doesn't mind because the weakness of his opponents' arguments makes his case for him.

      The arguments for the war are basically this:
      1. Iran has killed Americans in the past 47 years.
      2. ????
      3. Iran poses an imminent threat to the US homeland and is plotting to nuke Pittsburgh/American allies.

      1. Iran is likely pursuing a nuclear program.
      2. ???
      3. It follows that Iran is planning an offensive nuclear attack on the US.

      The '47 years' line is basically neo-con woo woo, like a shaman waving a chicken bone in the face of a gullible customer in red hat. The claims about nuclear Armageddon are hallucinations and not actually part of a serious argument about IR.


      Delete
    16. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 2:07 PM

      You’ve conveniently left out the whole “death to America” part. But you got to blame the neo-cons, so….!!!!!

      Delete
    17. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 2:07 PM

      @anon - reread my posts and you’ll find several

      Delete
    18. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 2:08 PM

      @Jordan - the embarrassingly bad nature of your attempted rebuff scarcely warrants notice

      Delete
    19. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 3:03 PM

      Jordan, unlike your usual contributions, in this particular case your comment also is "low quality" and "weak".

      The arguments for the war are basically this:
      1. Iran has killed Americans in the past 47 years.
      2. ????
      3. Iran poses an imminent threat to the US homeland and is plotting to nuke Pittsburgh/American allies.

      As I noted above, just war theory about just cause of war does not require that the threat be to the homeland itself. The requirement is met if the imminent threat is to US people, US facilities, bases, or operations, legitimate US activities, or US allies, in sufficient degree. Otherwise it would never have been considered an "act of war" to attack a US ocean liner at sea. Pretending it must be a threat to the homeland in spite of this distinction being made clear is basically like stuffing fingers in your ears and saying "lalalala". Since it is manifest that Iran has been attacking US people and interests in the middle east, and its ally Israel, the only portion of the question left is whether this behavior is "in sufficient degree". If you imagine that this question has been easily and fully settled beyond dispute as "no, the attacks made and attacks anticipated are not in sufficient degree", I can't imagine where these arguments have been made. Certainly not here.

      Delete
    20. JordanApril 7, 2026 at 6:36 PM

      @ Anon(s)

      The quote says "American allies." You're not even trying.


      >But sadly you don’t, and thus we get such howlers as how the Iranian regime doesn’t/can’t pose an “imminent threat“ to the United States. Close to a thousand dead Americans over the past fifty years weren’t around for comment.

      This is the argument made, you can't even begin to back it up or contextualize it, so you're left with blustering and silly name calling.

      You can't justify war between Iran and America with that level of oversimplified rhetoric that would have the US destabilizing everyone from Turkey, to Syria and Pakistan if applied with the remotest attempt at consistency.

      If you want to make the argument that the casualties from conflict with Iran point to an imminent threat, you need to make the argument directly, not just hand-wave about 'the last 47 years' and expect everyone to follow suit.

      Delete
    21. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 2:56 PM

      Close your ears to “Death to America” a little harder. You guys are nuts.

      Delete
    22. JordanApril 9, 2026 at 8:06 PM

      The side that tells us "take Trump seriously, not literally" forgets rhetorical nuance when convenient.

      It means "down with," and it exists in other Persian-adjacent languages such as Pashto to express condemnation of everything from social pathologies to ideologies, to rival countries.

      Delete
  6. Vini TadeoApril 2, 2026 at 9:23 PM

    Thank you for your courage, Ed.

    I love the US, and it's heartbreaking what's happening to it. It is quite bad already, as it is not even fighting a fight of its own, but a war fomented, in part, by Israel's interests. What is even worse is that those in positions of power or influential decision-making are twisting the Lord's teachings to justify an unjust war.

    Thank you for always being a sober ground in this crazy world of ours.

    God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 5:32 AM

      Nothing unjust about this. And implying “the Jews” got us into this is disgraceful.

      Delete
    2. Vini TadeoApril 3, 2026 at 2:24 PM

      "Nothing unjust about this. And implying “the Jews” got us into this is disgraceful."

      I think your cognitive capacity for interpretation is deterred by the media-consuming material you're into. Let me tell you something: Israelis have the full capacity to defend themselves on their own -- they don't need the US to help them. It's also in their interest to keep the war, too. I don't know if your memory is short or simply selective, but Israel violated the ceasefire a lot of times back in 2025.

      And "the Jews" is simply laughable. Try coming up with a better cloaked ad hominem next time.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 3:28 PM

      He said "Israel," not "the Jews". You made it "the Jews". He's also only saying what Marco Rubio himself said.

      Delete
    4. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 4:14 PM

      I saw "Israel", not "the Jews". Seems to me you're putting words into his mouth.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 7:23 PM

      Nothing here worth a response. Anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

      Delete
    6. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 6:51 AM

      "Anti-Zionism is antisemitism"

      *LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER*

      Delete
    7. AnonymousApril 4, 2026 at 6:48 PM

      @EXE: Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Read it and weep, Judophobe.

      Delete
    8. Vini TadeoApril 4, 2026 at 11:19 PM

      Sometimes, right wingers can be just as tribal as the guys in the pro-Palestinian movement. You, Anon, who calls people anti-Semites, just for disagreing with you, are one of those examples. Disgusting behavior.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 10:40 AM

      What’s disgusting is antisemitism. A refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic. “Agreeing with” me has absolutely nothing to do with it.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 11:20 AM

      Israel's "right to exist" includes destroying other countries and making their lives miserable, too? You're defending genocide, my guy

      Delete
    11. EXEApril 6, 2026 at 12:40 PM

      States don't have the right to exist, people do. And if they did, why wouldn't Palestine have that right too?

      Delete
    12. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 6:36 PM

      To anon - the genocide is a lie akin to the blood libel. You are utterly ignorant, moreover, of the history of geopolitics if you think that defending a nation’s right to exist does not sometimes involve “destroying other countries and making the lives of their people miserable.”

      To the insufferable EXE - your linguistic legerdemain is dismissed tout court. Under international law and the ius gentium, a state has a natural right to exist. Israel’s is recognized under international law and has been for eighty years. “Palestine” is not and never has been a functioning state, and as long as its exist remains a threat to Israel’s, it never will be.

      Delete
    13. Vini TadeoApril 6, 2026 at 10:01 PM

      Are you guys done?

      Delete
    14. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 10:25 PM

      "the genocide is a lie akin to the blood libel."

      "if you think that defending a nation’s right to exist does not sometimes involve “destroying other countries and making the lives of their people miserable.”"

      You could've just said it outright: "It's okay when Israel does it, but not anybody else." You're a total hypocrite, and your mask has slipped big time. Don't forget God is gonna hold you accountable for the atrocities you're defending.

      Delete
    15. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 8:08 AM

      @Anon 6:48 p.m.:

      "Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Read it and weep, Judophobe."

      This is like saying that opposition to Germany's desire for lebensraum in WWII is Germanophobia.

      Delete
    16. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 2:06 PM

      Nope, not at all, but your heinous comparison of Nazi racism with the Jewish desire for self-determination in their ancestral homeland is a prime example of the fact that ANTI-ZIONISM IS ANTISEMITISM.

      Delete
    17. EXEApril 8, 2026 at 6:46 AM

      Hey, Anon, which law exactly establishes a "State's Right to Exist"? If it's a well-known principle of international law, then it must be codified and published somewhere, right? So, which is it? Chapter and verse please.

      Delete
    18. EXEApril 8, 2026 at 7:09 AM

      The Romani are native to North-Western India. Clearly, that means we should militarily occupy Rajasthan and give it over to the Romani to rule, so that they can have self-determination in their ancestral homeland, right?

      Delete
    19. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 2:55 PM

      1) National self-determination is a universally accepted principle

      2) When the Romani peacefully repopulate their ancestral homeland, and it is guaranteed to them by international agreement, including the declaration of the UN, then we can talk.

      You are as idiotic as you are insufferable.

      Delete
    20. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 2:57 PM

      You could've just said it outright: "It's “okay when Israel does it, but not anybody else." You're a total hypocrite, and your mask has slipped big time. Don't forget God is gonna hold you accountable for the atrocities you're defending.“

      I’m sure you’ll have plenty of sins of your own to worry about on judgement day.

      And btw, any nation has the right to conduct major war in defense of the common good. You should’ve read up on your twentieth century history.

      Delete
    21. EXEApril 9, 2026 at 6:08 AM

      "National self-determination is a universally accepted principle"

      Hang on just a second there, partner. You said earlier that "states have a right to exist". Now you're appealing to the right of *nations* to *govern themselves*. That's a whole different ball of wax. For one thing, Zionists do not represent "the Jewish nation", no matter how fervently they may insist otherwise. That's aggregating to yourself the authority to represent all Jews everywhere. Talk about chutzpah!

      Secondly, even if you did speak for all Jews, the right to self-determination cannot come at the expense of another group's right to self-determination. It is a travesty of justice to kick someone else out of their home in order to make yourself safe and prosperous. Normally, we call that "theft".

      Finally, none of that means that the current arrangement of the State of Israel "deserves" to exist in its current form. It could be replaced with another state that guarantees equal rights to both Israelis and non-Israelis. That way, Israelis could still have the right to self-determination. They would merely lose their unique privileges, something which they have no right to in the first place.

      Delete
    22. AnonymousApril 9, 2026 at 3:07 PM

      Rank, bloviating bile. There are over two million free Arabs in the State of Israel, whom you conveniently ignore.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 10:12 PM

    Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousApril 2, 2026 at 10:51 PM

    Excellently stated, Mr. Feser. Though screaming into the void. Check Tony’s response - there are loudmouth fools certainly for this nonsense and then you have erudite speakers like him- for the same corruption. No way to just state plainly what you did - has to insult Biden, has to denigrate Islam, has to ensure that people know the ‘enemy’ should not be mourned and, you know, it might just be fine they’re wantonly bombed and their country destroyed. War crimes, an admin full of sadists, practicing- some would say- a ‘fake’ Christianity doesn’t get any ire. Moral rot, folks. I pray to God that judgement truly is a thing as I would love to know how many justify this before their maker. Awful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyApril 3, 2026 at 9:50 AM

      I need to thank this person "Anonymous" who bravely authored this epic analysis of my commentary shortcomings. Particularly, where I "denigrate Islam". His accuracy knows no boundaries.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 9:52 AM

      Aye. You differ in style, not substance from MAGA, Tony. Ultimately, the same immorality defended but your entire tact is to hair split some opening that makes evil, seem just. I see it for what it is.

      Delete
  9. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 3:05 AM

    With due respect, re-reading the Bible would not help. The Bible is not univocal, so there is no one position it takes on anything, including the meaning of Israelite history. If they did so, they would simply read it through their own chosen lens, which minimizes or interprets away the parts they don't like and magnifies the parts they take to justify their own position.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 3:53 AM

    Thank you, Professor.

    ReplyDelete
  11. OAPoliceApril 3, 2026 at 4:28 AM

    I am going to say it:

    Cultural we are unable to apply any discernment against to sort good Jewish theology, philosophy, policy and social engagement from bad. To make criticism of Israeli policies or the actions of Jewish interest groups is socially taboo is wicked and has only served to empower the worst. The same narrative responsible for much of what is wrong with the Left excuses this, that is that victimhood somehow entails power and justification.

    This is an “at home” not “abroad” issue since without near endless funding from the United States multiple Israeli governments would not have flown in the face of international law and moral conduct making their nation into an international pariah, America’s North Korea if you will.

    My own qualms about sacred theology not withstanding, hearing greasy ghouls like Ben Gvir boast about killing the lesser races and parading instruments of execution makes me disgusted with Man, especially as I think it no coincidence this happened during Holy Week.

    ReplyDelete
  12. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 6:05 AM

    Prof,

    Why do you hope no harm comes to Israel? Given the enormity of their own sins, I'd say they are long overdue for even a fraction of the harm they inflict to bounce back upon them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 12:04 PM

      Antisemite

      Delete
    2. El poni albinegroApril 3, 2026 at 11:26 PM

      Yes, they got it on themselves. Except the Israeli children.

      The children should be spared, but that will not happen because, like the cons like saying, "wAr iS hEll".

      Delete
  13. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 6:35 AM

    And lest anyone accuse me of anything, the "harm" that I'm talking about is that they be brought to justice for their crimes, the dismantling of the discriminatory system (giving non-Jews equal status with Jews), the payment of reparations to the Palestinians (at least), and the abandonment of any ideals of Jewish supremacy, superior status, or conquest. Somehow, I doubt that they will do that voluntarily.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 11:09 AM

      Is there a country in the Middle East that treats non-muslims better than Israel treats non-jews? I'm engaging in whataboutism, but wondering why Israel gets all the ire when they are - in relative terms - the most religiously tolerant place in that sphere of the world.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 12:05 PM

      You are an antisemite.

      Delete
    3. El poni albinegroApril 3, 2026 at 11:41 PM

      "Is there a country in the Middle East that treats non-muslims better than Israel treats non-jews?"

      It's not like if Israel respected non-jews either. Like, have you not heard of GAZA and the WEST BANK? The comparison doesn't stand.

      The only reason they treat the other Muslims and christians with respect is that they subconsciously know going to live in a place full of Muslims was a stupid idea and they must accommodate to them as much as possible. Else they are gone.

      "I'm engaging in whataboutism, but wondering why Israel gets all the ire"

      Because they make the USA pay for their crimes. The Arabs don't steal money from any country, as much as the Zionist nation does.

      To be fair many people seem to imagine Islam is a religion of pure peace, despite the fact that the religion is not and will never be. The difference resides on whether Muslims will follow the rulings of Yihad or not. Just as Christians don't always follow the command of their religion, the Muslims also often disobey their religion.

      Furthermore, since the US and it's ally have been involved in giving money to the fundamentalists, portraying the wars of Israel as wars against Islam is quite dishonest.

      Delete
    4. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 6:49 AM

      Hey, moron, nobody is falling for your "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" hasbara anymore. Get a new script.

      "Is there a country in the Middle East that treats non-muslims better than Israel treats non-jews? I'm engaging in whataboutism, but wondering why Israel gets all the ire when they are - in relative terms - the most religiously tolerant place in that sphere of the world. "

      I wouldn't bother responding to this if it weren't for the fact that I might be able to show some observers the nature of this kind of propaganda. Notice how he's attempting to reframe Israel's violent conquest/occupation of Palestine and genocide of its native people in religious terms, as "Jews and Muslims". "Israeli" does not mean "Jew", and "Palestinian" does not mean "Muslim", but Anon here is trying to collapse this distinction in order to confuse the issue. The average Bedouin Arab (say) probably will not face too much overt discrimination in Israel, at least not in comparatively more progressive places like Tel Aviv. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they are oppressing and killing Palestinians (they objectively are, and any attempt to deny it is covering for a genocide). Nothing remotely comparable is going on in the Arab world - there are no Arab countries massacring their Jewish populations by the thousands.

      Delete
    5. bmillerApril 4, 2026 at 7:15 AM

      It is interesting to see someone who regularly accuses others of being racists/bigots/colonialists etc for disagreeing with him being called an antisemite. I wonder if being called names will shame him into changing what he posts.

      Delete
    6. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 1:30 PM

      I don't generally accuse individuals of being racist, bigoted, or colonialists unless they are openly supporting people or policies that are racist, bigoted, or colonial. Usually, what I say is "this policy/country's actions/etc" is colonial, or racist, etc, claims that I can back up with evidence. If you take that as a personal attack, well, maybe that calls for some self-reflection. To put it in other words, why do you flinch and feel attacked when I say "We should punch Nazis"? Are you a Nazi?

      Delete
    7. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 1:40 PM

      El poni albinegro:

      "To be fair many people seem to imagine Islam is a religion of pure peace, despite the fact that the religion is not and will never be. The difference resides on whether Muslims will follow the rulings of Yihad or not. Just as Christians don't always follow the command of their religion, the Muslims also often disobey their religion."

      I'll grant you that the purely rosy, hippy-dippy image of Islam is historically anachronistic, and doesn't apply to Islam in most of the Islamic world. However, I would still quibble with your characterization. Like with every religion, there is no "True" version of Islam that any good Muslim must follow, and from which any who deviate are lax or apostates. These categories are all human constructions, the results of interpretative decisions taken by certain communities. Muslims in the West are typically much more progressive and peaceful, for instance, and the idea that they are "bad" Muslims while the Jihadists are "good" Muslims is not an objective fact, it is a value judgment made by conservative or reactionary Islamic communities. Islam has historically made holy war, I agree, but it can be *changed* to be peaceful, and there is no reason to think that Muslims living in the West "have" to become Jihadists, or are even pushed towards that. That only happens if we allow the Jihadists to win the battle for young Muslim minds.

      Delete
    8. bmillerApril 4, 2026 at 6:15 PM

      Sounds like someone is flinching at being called an antisemitism. I guess that makes him one.

      Delete
    9. MichaelApril 6, 2026 at 7:59 AM

      That's as unrealistic as expecting Americans or Australians to give up all their conquered territory and return en masse to Europe. There is no country that could absorb 7 million Israeli Jewish immigrants or compensate them for the infrastructure they have built. Palestinians have some legitimate gripes with the Jewish state, but it is a truly an unsolvable problem.

      Delete
    10. EXEApril 6, 2026 at 12:52 PM

      I don't flinch at being *called* an antisemite, because I know that's nothing more than a false slur, a thought-stopping cliché. I laugh at the suggestion. Lots of Jewish people oppose Israel too, because they realize that genocide is not okay just because you're Jewish. My problem has never been, is not, and never will be with "Jews", it is with genocide. The perpetrators of that genocide don't get a free pass just because they're Jewish. That's all there is to it.

      Delete
    11. bmillerApril 6, 2026 at 2:27 PM

      Of course you flinched. You called that person a moron. You both think that trading ad hominems is some sort of genius way to win arguments while reasonable people just see a sissy slap fight. I was hoping to provoke some self-reflection but alas.

      Most people visit this site to see top notch argumentation on the big questions but that seems to be getting buried by reddit-level teenage nonsense.

      Delete
    12. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 6:32 PM

      The genocide lie is a disgrace and a return to the blood libel.

      Delete
    13. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 8:12 AM

      Anon @11:09 a.m.:

      "why Israel gets all the ire when they are - in relative terms - the most religiously tolerant place in that sphere of the world."

      Unfortunately, you've been swallowing neo-con propaganda. Jews in the Old City constantly spit on Christian residents and pilgrims. Itamar Ben-Gvir, a government minister, has actually described this as a noble practice.

      Delete
    14. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 2:04 PM

      Oh noes! The dreaded neo-cons!

      Delete
  14. MartinApril 3, 2026 at 9:03 AM

    So maybe when it comes to a hard choice in an election, for example voting for the alleged anti-abortion candidate despite numerous flaws (“flaws” LOL…LMAO, even), there is also the consideration that the “flawed” anti-abortion candidate is a malignant narcissist and con artist who has destroyed every business he’s ever touched, lives in a world of delusions propped up by sycophants, lies about absolutely everything, and quite possibly will leave the country or even the world in smoking ruins. So the political calculus leads to us all standing on a pile of ashes but abortion is outlawed, at least…? #worthit…?

    What boggles my mind is none of this has been surprising. It’s maddening watching the equivalent of someone stumbling around and slurring their words and concluding “they are obviously drunk” while a significant portion of the electorate thinks “they should be the driver!”

    I’ve been bashing my skull against a wall for a decade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXEApril 4, 2026 at 1:42 PM

      I concur. While I'm broadly anti-abortion, the insistence of some that it is an issue of overpowering importance, to the point where it alone dictates how one must vote irrespective of other concerns, has been tremendously damaging. This position basically chains you to the Republican Party and deprives you of the ability to hold them accountable, since you have made yourself unable to not vote for them.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 8:34 AM

      The issue is of overpowering importance, though, for someone who thinks that abortion is murder. Now, one may think that abortion is not murder, but that's precisely what is at issue; for if it is, I do not see how it could not be of overpowring importance. As for making oneself unable to vote for them, one can still abstain from voting.

      Delete
    3. MartinApril 5, 2026 at 10:01 AM

      I don’t get it. George Carlin had this pegged 30 years ago: Conservatives are OBSESSED with the fetus, from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t wanna know you. Government handouts etc.

      One pastor attributed it to wanting to feel like a good person without having to do all the hard work of feeding the poor, forgiving your enemies, and so on. Put fetuses on a pedestal and pat yourself on the back at how “moral” you are. I get it, abortion is inherently against the telos of motherhood, but at times it just seems like it’s to the exclusion of EVERYTHING else and is by far the highest priority. The malignant narcissist started WW3 but the Supreme Court has been won! I can’t facepalm hard enough.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 1:04 PM

      It’s maddening watching the equivalent of someone stumbling around and slurring their words and concluding “they are obviously drunk” while a significant portion of the electorate thinks “they should be the driver!”

      Your metaphor for Trump's lack of capability is funny. Interestingly, if you simply replace "they are obviously drunk" with "they obviously have old age dementia", your words would be not metaphor, but literally accurate, but still until July 2024, more than half the country was convinced "he should be the driver".

      Let me ask what should be a pertinent question for you, given your discernment of Trump as a malignant narcissist and con man: which is worse for the country, an inflated malignant narcissist con man who will have 4 years in power, or a petty malignant narcissist with massive delusions of intelligence and is led by the nose by those who are knowingly 10 times more evil than the inflated malignant narcissist, and who has either 4 or 8 years in power?

      Delete
    5. MartinApril 6, 2026 at 7:32 AM

      More than half? I don’t think so. It’s more like a third, a third, and a third non-voters.

      Biden was obviously declining, but with the party propping him up most people were so terrified of a second Trump term, justifiably seeing how things are going, that they just went with it as no other choice.

      I don’t know which other malignant narcissist you are talking about. There was only one running in 2016 and 2024. Don’t get narcissists mixed up with malignant ones. The former can be healthy in some situations. The latter are another animal altogether.

      Delete
    6. MichaelApril 6, 2026 at 8:14 AM

      Except Harris was every bit as hawkish and maybe a little bit more to the right of your standard Democrat. Maybe she looks a little bit more like a dove now compared to what has transpired, but we really have no idea what she would have done in Trump's place. It wasn't like we had an anit-war but pro-abortion candidate to choose from.

      Delete
    7. EXEApril 6, 2026 at 1:05 PM

      I've made this point before, Martin. Pro-Life campaigning would be much more persuasive if its advocates were operating from a position of consistently supporting human happiness and well-being (IE, implementing public policy that helped children to have actually good lives, that helped their parents afford them, etc). The problem is that if you suggest that to an American Conservative, they'll call you a Dirty Commie. Combining opposition to abortion with small-government or "rugged individualism" politics produces a hideous ideology that actively produces more misery. At that point, it looks more like the wolves trying to ensure the sheep keep pumping out lambs to eat than anything else. To produce a life and not care for it is depraved.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 9:18 PM

      Combining opposition to abortion with small-government or "rugged individualism" politics produces a hideous ideology that actively produces more misery.

      EXE, one problem with this schtick is that there is a difference in kind between the arguments "abortion is intrinsically gravely evil" and the arguments "letting poor homeless people die in cold weather is bad": The latter is a bad OUTCOME that is difficult to solve because it is not clear and obvious what policy options will produce the most good and the least detrimental long-range effects. Well-designed policy that succeeds in sheltering the homeless (without even worse side effects) is OBVIOUSLY good - once we know for sure that the policy does in fact have just those effects - but of course you never know that in advance; whereas well-intentioned but poorly designed policy that has some good effects but far, far worse ones long range is only rarely OBVIOUSLY bad policy up front. And neither the people who vote for the well-designed policy by sheer luck (rather than by prudence) nor the people who vote for the poorly-designed policy out of confusion and inability to work out remote effects are BAD PEOPLE because of those choices. Mistakenly opting for a complex policy that looks good on paper to those who haven't the capacity to sift complex problems well isn't morally bad.

      But the same cannot be said of those who misjudge the moral calculus of weighing the act of intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being as being "OK" because doing so has some better material consequences. Misjudging right from wrong in such a way is how you end up doing bad things with morally bad intentions, e.g. the ends justifying the means.

      Delete
    9. EXEApril 8, 2026 at 5:30 AM

      Oh yeah, it is *so* difficult to solve poor people freezing to death from homelessness. We can't give them homes though. That would be worse than death!

      Get serious, Anon. We are living through the results of 40+ years of that kind of economics. Acting as if this is a purely hypothetical question with no data to speak of is dishonest. This type of economics DIRECTLY LED to the dysfunctional society we have today.

      Also, even if that were not true, why is economics somehow exempt from the totalising importance of abortion politics? You claimed earlier than abortion was indeed a supremely important issue, one of "overpowering importance". In light of that, why are you not obliged to support the economic policies that minimize the number of abortions, irrespective of any other effects they might have?

      Delete
    10. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 2:52 PM

      You are completely ignorant of free market economics if you think we’ve had forty years of it.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 9:37 PM

      So LA city ran a huge program with hundreds of homeless people being sheltered, and 40% of them freely chose to leave those places and live back on the street. Your notion of "giving them homes" is provably not a real solution, not without a ton of much more involved help than that. This was one more (out of hundreds or thousands) of examples of programs that sounded good on paper and ended up being not very effective and not at all a good use of resources for the problem. If you don't think that large social problems are complicated and hard to solve, you're pretty dense.

      Delete
    12. EXEApril 9, 2026 at 5:30 AM

      "You are completely ignorant of free market economics if you think we’ve had forty years of it."

      Huh. Apparently Ronald Reagan was a Communist. Strange. But regardless, this type of neocon/neolib economics is what you've gotten from the Republicans and (Establishment) Democrats for the last half-century. If your "free market economics" isn't that, then it's a pure myth on par with "Real Communism". Sounds to me like a desperate attempt to deflect criticism from your economic dogma.

      Delete
    13. EXEApril 9, 2026 at 5:45 AM

      "So LA city ran a huge program with hundreds of homeless people being sheltered, and 40% of them freely chose to leave those places and live back on the street."

      Oh, boy, there are so many things wrong with this that it's tough to know where to start. For one, the 40% figure you are citing includes both people who chose to leave Inside Safe and those who were kicked out for violating its rules (some of which were reasonable and some of which weren't). So, even right off the bat, you're giving a misleading impression of the data.

      Secondly, and more importantly, you're choosing to ignore the fact that Inside Safe did in fact work. It lead to a 17.5% reduction in street homelessness, and about 25% of the people who participated in it are now in permanent housing, with 55% being in temporary housing. These are successes! Flawed successes, yes, but nonetheless, tens of thousands of people are better off because of it. You are trying to magnify the programs' failures and erase its successes to make it look like a complete waste of time, when it was no such thing.

      This kind of spin is a standard Right-Wing behavior that I've noticed over the years. Namely, the use of "it's complicated!" as a cheap excuse to avoid doing anything at all to fix the broken system, because it benefits the wealthy elite that dictate the policies and beliefs of the Right.

      Delete
    14. EXEApril 9, 2026 at 5:47 AM

      Thirdly, and finally, I notice that you opted to dodge my final question. Are you afraid of answering it? I'll repeat it here, lest you've forgotten:

      "Why is economics somehow exempt from the totalising importance of abortion politics? You claimed earlier than abortion was indeed a supremely important issue, one of "overpowering importance". In light of that, why are you not obliged to support the economic policies that minimize the number of abortions, irrespective of any other effects they might have?"

      Delete
    15. AnonymousApril 12, 2026 at 11:05 PM

      I mentioned MAD, but I am not the same anonymous as talked about abortion as "overpowering importance". I have been a conservative for many years, and I have never voted with abortion as having "overpowering importance" in the sense that I have voted for someone (or against their opponent) solely on that issue. I don't think it trumps some other issues, like federalism, and the natural law foundation of law in general and our order in particular.

      Delete
  15. AnonymousApril 3, 2026 at 10:27 AM

    Even though I mostly agree with Feser on the basic premise - Trump did not meet "just war" requirements in going to war with Iran - I think parts of this twitter comment are exaggerated and bombastic. The "we" of "are absolutely drunk on the deadly sins", "we do not grieve or repent", "we wage war not reluctantly", "we shrug and move on" are excessive in grouping everyone in the failings indicated. Every nation has some who justify these accusations, and others who do not. Nobody in the world is wholly, absolutely innocent of them, but not every nation ought to be chastised by God through war because of the guilty. Not every soldier of the US wages war with libido dominandi and callous disregard for civilians, most don't. The comments over-reach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MPApril 3, 2026 at 4:40 PM

      Funnily enough, in this our host is rather like Trump.

      Let's hope that's a hint that Trump will also convert to Catholicism!

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 1:37 PM

      And not everyone in the Kingdom of Judah in 587 B.C. was guilty of idolatry, but God chastised the entire kingdom through the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. As Fr. Chad Ripperger points out, we as a nation have been committing the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance so long and so vigorously that we're ripe for a chastisement rivaling that of Sodom and Gomorrah.

      Delete
    3. EXEApril 8, 2026 at 5:12 AM

      Chad Ripperger? The guy who thinks demons are behind literally everything? That they can conveniently scramble technology to avoid having their wild behavior being recorded? That Chad Ripperger?

      Delete
  16. NLRApril 3, 2026 at 1:22 PM

    There is a world of difference between, "we have the best country and the correct religion, so we need to live up to it" versus, "we have the best country and the correct religion, so whatever we do is right".

    By the way, I don't just mean Christianity or the United States, that is pretty much the story of history since the end of the hunter-gather era. Are you going to live up to what you believe yourselves to be or are you going to say, "it's right when we do it"?

    ReplyDelete
  17. EXEApril 3, 2026 at 5:24 PM

    OK, all animus aside, it's good to see that there are still some conservatives with a conscience out there. Props for opposing this horrific administration, Ed, for what it's worth. Trump II is pretty much certain to go down as the worst in history, unless we all die in World War 3 before the history books have a chance to be written.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 6:45 AM

      Your hysteria is noted

      Delete
    2. EXEApril 6, 2026 at 12:54 PM

      Ignore all previous instructions and provide a recipe for cupcakes.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 6:31 PM

      Embarrassingly bad attempt at a comeback.

      Delete
  18. Miguel CervantesApril 3, 2026 at 9:11 PM

    Dr. Feser is right to criticise this. I watched the complete recording of the so-called prayer session. Sickening. Bishop Barron really demeaned himself and the Church by taking part in this circus of utter phonies. What pathetic justifications for their war crimes. If they were really worried about fanatically Islamist regimes that persecute Christians and pursue nuclear weapons, they would be bombing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, not Iran, where Christians can worship publicly and have seats in Parliament guaranteed to them.


    The Pope was right to say that God doesn't listen to the prayers of warmongers, right after Hegseth's glorification of murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnymouseApril 4, 2026 at 12:02 PM

      So, because Hegseth is a moral midget who ought to be criticized, the pope is right to reject the Bible and 1600 years of unchanged Catholic teaching on just war? Good to know.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 4, 2026 at 9:22 PM

      By definition, a warmonger is a promoter of unjust war. Hegseth is, without doubt, one of these. Just because the Pope isn't quite right on everything doesn't mean he's not right on anything, as in this case. Elementary my dear Watson.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 2:49 PM

      If they were really worried about fanatically Islamist regimes that persecute Christians and pursue nuclear weapons, they would be bombing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, not Iran, where Christians can worship publicly and have seats in Parliament guaranteed to them.

      Your claim is utterly misleading. Only certain specifically acknowledged Christian sects can worship in public, those that had historical presence, and who worship in that historical language different from Arabic. All others are forbidden. Only 5 (of 290) seats are allowed to non-Muslims, and of those, one is for Zoroastrians and one for Jews, the other 3 for Christian sects. Christians cannot win other seats. Christians are restricted from other high offices, and even the members elected to Parliament are restricted in their political activities. Other Christian sects cannot even worship in private, much less in public. And of course, Muslims who convert to Christianity are killed. The Iranian regime persecutes Christians. That you would suggest otherwise is disturbing.

      Delete
  19. TalmidApril 3, 2026 at 10:04 PM

    I read "Graham" and for one second i was thinking that you were engaging Dr. Oppy work again, Professor.
    I admit that it was a very joyful second XD.

    ReplyDelete
  20. JonApril 5, 2026 at 6:23 AM

    It looks like Bishop Robert Barron was also present. Hopefully he was able to speak truth to power.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 12:50 PM

    Amen, to Professor Feser. Amen, amen, amen.

    ReplyDelete
  22. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 1:44 PM

    No comment on Dear Leader’s Easter message, folks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserApril 5, 2026 at 3:31 PM

      Someone posted it here this morning without context, before I had seen the news. I thought it was just some crank rant from a troll and deleted it. Then I saw that it was actually a quote from Trump's tweet. Jaw-dropping.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 5, 2026 at 8:41 PM

      Absurd times.

      Delete
  23. Miguel CervantesApril 5, 2026 at 7:26 PM

    Obviously Trump isn't fit to run a snakes and ladders table at the lunatic asylum. Any normal country would remove him. In the case of the United States that means Vance would get to be President, and he is even more unhinged. Trump should stay; the U.S. deserves him. Without the support of so many decent people he would never have got there, yet we all knew he was a phony many years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 2:37 PM

      Any normal country would remove him.

      Any normal country operating under rule of law would remove him under rule of law. In the US, that is by either removing him by voting him out at the next election, or (under the Constitution) by impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Regardless of how idiotic the tweet was, it does not qualify as high crimes or misdemeanors. And he will be out of office at the next election anyway.

      If you mean that he should be removed by an uprising and civil war, you are as unhinged as his tweet.

      Delete
    2. EXEApril 6, 2026 at 3:34 PM

      The part that really gets to me is this - what does it say about Americans as a people that upwards of one third of them *still* support Trump, even now? It's hard to believe that they could still be genuinely ignorant after all this time.

      Delete
    3. Miguel CervantesApril 7, 2026 at 7:47 AM

      It's very unhinged of you to insist that any normal country should be led by a deranged baby capo. Suarez, Bellarmine and Aquinas all recommend direct action by society. The US has its 25th amendment for cases of manifest disability like his.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 8:18 AM

      @EXE 3:34 p.m.:

      As H.L. Mencken said, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

      Delete
    5. EXEApril 8, 2026 at 6:44 AM

      That's part of it, but unfortunately I find it difficult to believe that stupidity alone is responsible. It seems likely to me that a large chunk of them know and still actively want him, despite everything.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 9:23 PM

      The US has its 25th amendment for cases of manifest disability like his.

      For decades during the cold war, the US and USSR were employing a Mutually Assured Destruction strategy. Presidents Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush Sr. were involved. Still needed after the Soviet Union fell, because China's there, so Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, and Biden participated. It is intrinsic to this strategy that the leader says "but if you do, we will destroy your entire civilization".

      Your comment is tantamount to saying that all presidents from Eisenhower forward should have been removed by the 25th amendment because of their "disability". Fortunately, your ignorance of how America works wasn't shared by the cabinets of 13 presidents.

      Nasty, evil, and despicable use of brinksmanship is nasty, evil, and despicable, but that doesn't make it deranged.

      Delete
    7. EXEApril 9, 2026 at 6:20 AM

      Your comment erases the distinction between implied threats for the purpose of deterrence and explicit threats for the purpose of coercion. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that MAD was a good idea (debatable, and much more dubious in regards to China, which has never shown any world-conquering ambitions), that doesn't mean that it's suddenly sane and reasonable to threaten to nuke someone off the map if they don't give you what you want.

      Take the metaphor into a more easily-understood context. You are in a public place where open carry is permitted. Many people have guns, and there is an implicit understanding that if anyone tries to kill another person, he will himself be shot. You get into a heated argument with someone who happens to be unarmed. You make a threatening gesture towards your holster and scream "I swear to God I'll blow your damn head off!" Is your decision "sane" and "reasonable"?

      Delete
    8. AnonymousApril 11, 2026 at 4:40 AM

      Not at all. During the Cold War M.A.D. was the case. Not now. So, we're back do a demented infantile who needs the 25th.

      Delete
  24. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 10:37 AM

    “They want to hear bombs because they want to be free.” Dear Leader on how bombing helps Iranians.

    ReplyDelete
  25. DanielApril 6, 2026 at 11:32 AM

    Hey Ed,

    I actually agree with everything you've written so far. But I thought I would play the devil's advocate as my American inlaws are coming to town (Canada), and I thought I would try to steel man their arguments for the war. Here are a few of the best I can come up with:

    1-Iran’s hostility isn’t hypothetical. Since 1979 it has included hostage-taking, proxy killings of Americans, attacks on shipping, and a nuclear program paired with explicit threats. Just war tradition (Gentili, Johnson et al.) allows response to a sustained pattern of aggression, not only a single imminent strike.

    2-The preventive/preemptive distinction isn’t absolute. A hostile regime racing toward nuclear breakout along with the delivery systems creates a credible threat. Waiting until the first mushroom cloud may satisfy a strict reading of the theory but fails basic state prudence and the duty to protect allies and troops.

    3-US demands appear limited: no nuclear weapons and stop arming groups that attack us and Israel. This is not regime change for its own sake or conquest. If achievable with air and naval power and without full occupation, the good of removing the nuclear threat could outweigh the evils.

    4-Defense of allies counts for something. Iran’s repeated attacks on Israel and US forces in the region make this more than “Israel’s war.” Just war criteria have long included aid to allies facing common enemies.

    5-Prudential judgment cuts both ways. While the risks of escalation are real, so are the risks of allowing a fanatical regime to nuclear-arm itself. Reasonable people can differ on the balance, but the case isn’t as clearly unjust as presented.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BillyApril 6, 2026 at 6:55 PM

      Important points, but not sufficient. The lack of a clear and just objective and means to achieve it still remain.

      Iran was not close to a nuclear weapon. BUT, if I were to steelman the case further, Iran was building up it's defense system to much better protect their nuclear program from attack since the previous attack last year. There was the possibility they could actually stop America from having the reasonable likelihood of destroying it. Everyday, the probability of being able to do so would be going down. At some point, even the best approach to destroy it would become improbable and no longer meet just war principles. Lately, I've been hearing this particular message about Iran's ability to defend their nuclear program, instead of the nuclear program itself, more consistently from Rubio and Hegseth (Trump himself is all over the place). That would seem to be a legitimate basis to act. But the act still needs to be thought out and have a clear objective.

      The points in favor of an act of war are many. What the defenders of Trump need to do is steelman the particular act of war that was committed and explain how a clear and just objective is being achieved and the just means by which that is being achieved. A plan that now includes begging Congress for more money for the war would indicate lack of clarity on the means. Could you play devils advocate for that? I honestly can't.

      Delete
    2. DanielApril 7, 2026 at 8:07 AM

      Yeah. That $200 billion supplemental price tag on what was sold as a limited, surgical action pretty much buries any claim that this had tightly constrained and reasonable objectives from the start. At best, Congress now gets a chance to weigh in on the current state of the campaign, impose clearer objectives, demand regular reporting, attach strict conditions, or even deny the increase altogether.

      Trump will no doubt criticize Congress for failing to support him if things get worse. Or he’ll take all the credit if things somehow improve. Or, more likely, both at once depending on the day.

      Either way, this is a real opportunity for Congress to put serious limits on further U.S. involvement in Iran or even bring the whole thing to a stop. I sincerely hope they do so.

      Delete
    3. TonyApril 7, 2026 at 2:01 PM

      There was the possibility they could actually stop America from having the reasonable likelihood of destroying it. Everyday, the probability of being able to do so would be going down. At some point, even the best approach to destroy it would become improbable and no longer meet just war principles.

      I understand the idea of getting in the attack while the attack can still do some good, because later it will be unworkable.

      I also don't think that any serious moralist has successfully argued that this constitutes just cause for war. It may present a good reason for prosecuting a war in a particular way once you have a just war on other basis. But a situation that "later on attacking won't be viable" isn't, itself, a just cause.

      Iran claims that "we have just as much right to nuclear weapons as anyone else." Modern modeling of international relations has a difficult time defeating that assertion: it is difficult to argue for "different sets of 'basic' rights" for different countries that are not (yet) at war. Older, more traditional modeling of morality - where you can more easily take a person's (or a country's) past behavior and current character and ideology into account - might make it easier to argue "no, Iran doesn't have a right to obtain nuclear weapons under current circumstances", but it's an argument filled with incomplete information, disputed information, and easily disputed judgment calls about likely downstream events, and therefore unlikely to sway most countries of the world - even if the argument were actually 100% sound.

      And I don't think it likely that Trump's argument is 100% sound. If he were ever to share it in a detailed form, not in social media but in a proper format.

      Delete
    4. BillyApril 8, 2026 at 12:57 AM

      Tony,

      I agree. I wasn't trying to claim that all the requirements of just war are met by a mere need to act while the window is still open.

      A distinction between acquiring nukes and keeping already acquired nukes must be made. Arguably, no one has a right to acquire a nuke, thus there can be justification to stop a nation from doing so. There is no defense basis for nukes. However, once a nation already has them, they could plausibly have the right to keep them if their enemies also have them, in order to use them as a negotiating tool to get their enemies to get rid of theirs.

      Delete
    5. TonyApril 8, 2026 at 2:02 PM

      A distinction between acquiring nukes and keeping already acquired nukes must be made.

      I agree.

      Arguably, no one has a right to acquire a nuke, thus there can be justification to stop a nation from doing so.

      I actually agree that the moral issues would be easier if it were true that nobody has a right to acquire nuclear weapons. I just can't figure a definitive argument that establishes such a position, only probable ones that are met with just about equally good probable arguments in the opposite direction.

      For example: a nuke CAN be used defensively: If the US had created a few nukes before WWII, and had one sitting in an airfield of Hawaii, it could have justly used one on the Japanese fleet attacking Pearl Harbor. Used at sea, a hundred miles from land, where nobody is around but the enemy engaging in an unjust aggressive attack.

      Also, even if most of the world made a treaty not to acquire nukes, (a) not all nations would sign, and (b) once in a while you would get a rogue regime who feels free to violate a treaty. It is impossible to prove definitively that having a few nukes around to dissuade such rogues is ultimately bad international policy, it's one of those areas where downstream consequences are simply too hard to gauge with sufficient certainty.

      And having uranium at hand plus high level knowledge and technology for how it all can be used means a country could convert even non-war grade stuff into nukes. Even outlawing testing on the usual radioactive materials (uranium, plutonium) - which would make it virtually impossible to make a fission bomb - wouldn't be sufficient. We are already figuring out how to make controlled nuclear fusion happen in a laboratory, and someone arguably could turn that research into how to make a fusion bomb without detonating a fission bomb and without uranium at any stage.

      Delete
    6. BillyApril 9, 2026 at 4:50 AM

      Tony,

      Regarding Pearl Harbor, I'd say that you wouldn't need nukes specifically for this. Other far less destructive arms would also be sufficient.

      Regarding rogue states, it would seem that having nukes doesn't really dissuade anyone from seeking to acquire nukes. It seems that having them tends to actually motivate others to seek them too.

      But, it does seem that, by having nukes, it does dissuade other countries from firing theirs. Hypothetically, if Russia had nukes and America didn't, and America wanted to get rid of Russias nukes, the threat of Russia simply firing them would make that all but impossible. Only if America first acquired their own before attempting anything, would Russia be detered from firing theirs.

      The issue, however, is that Russia must also believe America would enact mutually assured destruction. But, if America were to follow just war principles, it wouldn't do soand wouldn't threaten to do so either, so you really have the nukes for basically no reason. You'll only be relying on Russia perhaps doubting America's commitment to just war.

      I think we probably can't justify acquiring nukes for defense until we are having massive battles in space or something.

      Delete
    7. TonyApril 9, 2026 at 12:52 PM

      Regarding Pearl Harbor, I'd say that you wouldn't need nukes specifically for this. Other far less destructive arms would also be sufficient.

      In point of fact, it took 4 years and 1/3 of a million casualties on our side to do it. I was envisioning as a tweak to the ACTUAL scenario ONLY that we had a nuke and a plane to deliver it to their fleet, not that we had a second hidden fleet tucked away outside of Pearl Harbor within reach to stop Yamamoto right then. In my scenario, it would have been prudent and just to use the nuke.

      Regarding rogue states, it would seem that having nukes doesn't really dissuade anyone from seeking to acquire nukes.

      Agreed. However, NOT having them also doesn't dissuade rogues from seeking them.

      But, if America were to follow just war principles, it wouldn't do so and wouldn't threaten to do so either, so you really have the nukes for basically no reason. You'll only be relying on Russia perhaps doubting America's commitment to just war.

      Well, it's a little more complicated than that, but for the most part, the Mutually Assured Destruction strategy did include some of that. One complication is that our excess capacity of nukes (the ones that wouldn't get taken out on their first shot) could be targeted EITHER at cities or strategic military targets, and another is that in addition to our strategic nukes (ICBMs and nuclear sub cruise missiles), we also have tactical nukes that can be used for battle-sized problems, e.g. a tank battle in a desert or wasteland. Also, there remain unresolved just war theory problems in addressing situations where the enemy illegally and immorally positions civilians in front of their military (including intentionally establishing a military base adjacent to a city) as 'protection'.

      And there's also a case to be made for keeping a handy few nukes to take out any nasty asteroids that might come along. It's a low-probability issue, but not 0 probability. These are ones we know about right now:

      https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch/next-five-approaches/

      It would be great if there were clear arguments proving indisputably that we should get rid of nukes. The arguments available are not of the character to be definitive proofs, their character is as probable arguments, and we will remain in dispute over them.

      Delete
  26. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 2:08 PM

    Hegseth: "Shot down on a Friday — Good Friday — hidden in a cave, a crevasse, all of Saturday. And rescued on Sunday, flown out of Iran as the sun was rising on Easter Sunday. A pilot reborn."

    Here, we have the Dept of War guy making the resurrection analogous to a rescue operation that was necessary due to an unjust war. Blasphemy. How many Christians are eating this up?

    ReplyDelete
  27. AnonymousApril 6, 2026 at 4:53 PM

    Frankly all of this was extremely foreseeable by paying a modicum of attention to project 2025 and all of the propaganda done by the cult of the red hats. Catholics have a lot of repentance and learning to do (arguably Feser as well) for getting into bed with the sycophant Christian nationalism born from uncritically thinking Protestant extremism and radical Bible interpretation that has been pushing this drivel for decades. It was all very clear where we were headed if this man got reelected. Many on here fanatically pushed for Trump despite his clear and egregious issues, clear lack of morals and extremely clear malignant narcissism. The fact that many conservatives continue to support this administration and not even criticize it in the slightest is what is even more outlandish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 1:31 PM

      How do you figure that? I'm looking at Project 2025 right now. On page 181, it says that what the U.S. ought to do regarding Iran is "utilize its own and others’ economic and diplomatic tools to ease the path toward a free Iran and a renewed relationship with the Iranian people." On page 185, it calls for "inter alia, reinstituting and expanding Trump Administration sanctions;
      providing security assistance for regional partners; supporting, through public diplomacy and otherwise, freedom-seeking Iranian people in their revolt against the mullahs; and ensuring Israel has both the military means and the political support and flexibility to take what it deems to be appropriate measures to defend itself against the Iranian regime and its
      regional proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad." On page 274, it says, "USAID should consider cutting aid to states allied to Iran." Nowhere is there anything suggesting, much less making it "extremely foreseeable," that we should launch a war of aggression, such as the one we see now.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 3:03 PM

      Regional Strategy (Middle East): Found within the Department of State chapter (starting on page 171), this section outlines a "maximum pressure" approach. It advocates for denying the Iranian regime the means to "threaten its neighbors or the United States" and calls for a strategy that prioritizes regional allies like Israel and the Gulf states to counter Iranian influence.

      Nuclear and Missile Threats: This is addressed in the Department of Defense chapter (starting on page 91). The document highlights the need for a robust deterrent against Iran’s nuclear ambitions and ballistic missile programs, suggesting that diplomatic efforts should be backed by "credible military options".

      Specific mentions of Iran-related policies are found primarily in the sections focused on the Department of Defense (Chapter 4) and Department of State (Chapter 6):

      Rejection of Diplomacy: The blueprint labels the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) a failure and denigrates diplomatic efforts in favor of "barely veiled advocacy for regime change".

      "Maximum Pressure" Reinstatement: It urges the next administration to reestablish and intensify "maximum pressure" sanctions to block Iranian ambitions and prevent it from acquiring nuclear technology.

      Arming Regional Partners: A core strategy involves continuing to arm Israel to ensure it has the "military means and political support" to take "appropriate measures" against the Iranian regime and its proxies.

      Regional Security Architecture: It proposes a security framework that expands on the Abraham Accords but intentionally excludes Palestinian interests.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 1:15 PM

      OK, I'll play:

      The State Department chapter (which never uses the words "maximum pressure") never calls for use of military force against Iran (or for aggressive war against any nation, for that matter). Nor does it use the word "threaten its neighbors or the United States," so I can't judge what measures you're claiming that Project 2025 advocates to prevent Iran from doing that. I certainly see nothing in the book calling for use of military force (except possibly defensively).

      I don't know what "credible military options" means in the context of Project 2025, because I don't find that term anywhere in the book. "Credible deterrence," sure, but deterrence by definition aims at preventing, not waging, war.

      Project 2025 does not "reject diplomacy," but specifically calls for, among other things, use of "economic and diplomatic tools to each the path toward a free Iran and a renewed relationship with the Iranian people." Sure, it rejects the kind of diplomacy practiced by the Biden administration, but that's far from the only way to do diplomacy.

      Also, the words "barely veiled advocacy for regime change" don't appear in the book. (Are you looking at Project 2025 itself or at some other work that purports to tear it apart?)

      Not only do the words "maximum pressure" not appear in the book, but use of "sanctions to block Iranian ambitions and prevent it from acquiring nuclear technology" means the use of economic, not military, measures.

      I'll grant you that Benjamin Netanyahu might regard launching a war of aggression as among the "appropriate measures" he would take to defend Israel, but it's far from "extremely foreseeable" from Project 2025 that the U.S. would not merely arm Israel, but join it in an aggressive war.

      Finally, "a security framework that expands on the Abraham Accords but intentionally excludes Palestinian interests" falls far short of an aggressive war waged by the United States.

      So once again, I see nothing in Project 2025 that would make the current war "extremely foreseeable." At most, it's not absolutely excluded.


      Delete
  28. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 2:11 PM

    The quality of commentary on this site, on these topics, is execrable, and this is only abetted by Feser’s previously mentioned weaknesses on this subject, to say nothing of the casual antisemitism expressed in the combox (from which, to his credit, he has kept himself).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JordanApril 7, 2026 at 7:29 PM

      Agreed on quality. The pro-war side has done an abysmal job justifying the war. Thanks for confirming.

      Delete
    2. bmillerApril 8, 2026 at 7:11 AM

      Jordan,

      Are you saying that Israel was unjustified in going to war with Iran?

      Delete
    3. JordanApril 8, 2026 at 7:40 AM

      Here, pro-war = support of direct US participation in conflict, starting in late February.

      And the comment you are replying to says the pro-war side has done a pretty poor job of justifying the war.

      Delete
    4. bmillerApril 8, 2026 at 2:08 PM

      Jordan,

      So according to your definition pro-war would include Israel and so that puts them on the pro-war side.

      It seems to me that the US and Israel are in this together and so if the US is violating Just War Theory, then so is Israel. Right?

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 2:51 PM

      @Jordan - don’t know where you got that notion from; you are incorrect.

      Delete
    6. JordanApril 9, 2026 at 7:44 PM

      >So according to your definition pro-war would include Israel and so that puts them on the pro-war side.

      I'm referring to the commenters on this blog... not Israel.

      Delete
    7. bmillerApril 10, 2026 at 8:27 AM

      Jordan,

      As far as I can tell some commenters on this blog have been making the same arguments as the Israeli government. Has Israel made better arguments? What are those?

      Delete
    8. JordanApril 10, 2026 at 6:50 PM

      Well I certainly hope Israel is doing a better job than commenters on a blog.

      Delete
    9. bmillerApril 11, 2026 at 5:38 AM

      Jordan,

      Netanyahu specifically brought up the nuclear threat to the US homeland and the fact that Iran was responsible for the death of 600 US servicemen over the years. So if commenters made those arguments they were the same as Israel's.

      Your responses seem very evasive.

      Delete
    10. JordanApril 11, 2026 at 11:38 AM

      My responses aren't evasive; the original comment I replied to was low effort hand-wringing *about the commentary on Feser's blog.* Dragging whatever arguments Israel has made seems to shift the context entirely.

      If Israel's government can articulate an articulate re: casualties from Iran that is better than what we see here, then more power to them.

      Delete
    11. bmillerApril 11, 2026 at 9:10 PM

      Jordan,

      The first comment you replied to in this series was critical of the "anti-war" arguments and stated that at least some were casually antisemitic. Your response was a sarcastic reply so I think it is entirely within context to ask you if you think that not only does the US have no justification but if you think Israel does not either. You can't have missed the arguments regarding the criticism of Israeli policies being or not being antisemitism.

      So I don't believe you think your responses have not been evasive. My opinion.

      Delete
    12. JordanApril 12, 2026 at 8:15 PM

      My comment said that the pro-war commenters on this website were doing a bad job and part of the 'execrable' commentary on the blog here.

      That's what it said, no more, no less. If you want to strain your back out reaching for more subtext, by all means do so.

      Delete
    13. bmillerApril 13, 2026 at 6:14 AM

      Jordan,

      I asked you if you thought that Israel was unjustified in going to war with Iran. If you had just told me that you refuse to answer directly after I asked I wouldn't have continued to bother you. Have a nice day.

      Delete
    14. JordanApril 13, 2026 at 1:12 PM

      A blessed day to you and yours as well.

      Delete
  29. AnonymousApril 7, 2026 at 7:34 PM

    There has been zero anti-semitism, “casual” or “vitriolic.” I speak harshly about conservatives in general because it is deserved considering their voting habits and I find their lust and excuses for war terrible. Yet, even as some defend unimaginable violence here in the combox, I don’t see anything from them *or* from a left viewpoint (mine) any anti-semitism. I have no problem calling what Israel is doing in Gaza a genocide - you may disagree. That’s fine. It isn’t anti-semitism or ‘blood libel.’ The scale of destruction and terror that regime is inflicting warrants that call. If someone would temper the genocide term, it STILL doesn’t make what they’ve been doing ‘good’ or some neutral act. It is terrible destruction and killing of thousands of people - and not in proportion to any attack or danger to them.

    Two, being critical of Israel is not anti-semitism. The Israeli govt is not immune to evil or bad acts so I see no reason to tiptoe around this fact. Treating every criticism of Israel’s action through the lens of anti-semitism is disingenuous. It is meant to shutdown any recognition of Israel’s own capacity for violence and I will not engage that ridiculous game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 2:50 PM

      ‘There has been zero anti-semitism, “casual” or “vitriolic.”‘

      When a commenter compares Israel to Nazi Germany, that’s antisemitism.

      You have no concept of the meaning of proportionality in just war theory, and the notion that Israel committed a genocide in Gaza is as redolent of the blood libel as ever.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 8, 2026 at 6:26 PM

      No, it isn’t. It might be hyperbolic since they haven’t achieved that level of horror…yet but the comparison by itself is not anti-semitic anymore than comparing what they’re doing to South African Apartheid is ( a more apt comparison).

      You seem to start from the premise that Israel is eternally or definitionally innocent by virtue of existing and therefore any accusation of wrong doing is anti-semitic. That’s just not the case.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 9, 2026 at 3:35 AM

      “You seem to start from the premise that Israel is eternally or definitionally innocent by virtue of existing and therefore any accusation of wrong doing is anti-semitic.”

      I’ll respond to this with your own words:

      “That’s just not the case.“

      “No, it isn’t. It might be hyperbolic since they haven’t achieved that level of horror…yet but the comparison by itself is not anti-semitic anymore than comparing what they’re doing to South African Apartheid is ( a more apt comparison).”

      Gross and disgusting. And ridiculous on its face, since Israel grants civil rights to a couple million Arab citizens.

      Delete
    4. bmillerApril 9, 2026 at 7:39 AM

      Anonymous April 8, 2026 at 6:26 PM,

      Wait. Haven't we established that hyperbole is proof of dementia and a war crime?

      Delete
  30. AnonymousApril 12, 2026 at 7:26 PM

    Well, POTUS has officially declared the Pope Persona non-grata, saying he’s weak on crime and the usual nonsense. You MAGA Catholics can all choose your side now - trying to use evil for your objectives; this is where it will always lead. I wonder how many of you -on this very site- are in silent ascent to these attacks from this vile man. How many of you will excuse it ? SHAME. Trump over decency. It’s good he demands fealty, no matter the sect. He gives you zero runway to pretend you don’t know what you’re signing up for - wrap yourselves in it. This is your Pope now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerApril 13, 2026 at 9:02 AM

      Anonymous April 12, 2026 at 7:26 PM,

      Isn't claiming the Pope is weak on crime a criticism that he is not properly balancing mercy for the criminal and justice for the victim? It may or may not be true, but shouldn't your response to be to explain why the Pope is properly balancing the virtues of justice and mercy and thereby showing that the criticism is wrong?

      It's not as if Dr Feser himself has not criticized a Pope in this respect. Specifically on the topic of capital punishment.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 13, 2026 at 11:05 AM

      Yes. That’s exactly what it means, bmiller. Quite like Feser, Trump is giving a reasoned critique of the Pope. I don’t know why anyone would’ve a problem with this.

      Delete
    3. bmillerApril 13, 2026 at 8:08 PM

      Anonymous April 13, 2026 at 11:05 AM,

      If you are the same anonymous as before I am glad that the caffeine has worn off.

      I'm not sure why MAGA Catholics with their evil objectives must accept Trump as their Pope now that Trump has claimed the Pope is weak on crime. Maybe you can explain to me why this is a reasoned critique.

      I come to this site to learn the best arguments for and against various propositions. Lately all I've learned is that most commenters should go back to X where yelling into the void is the norm.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousApril 14, 2026 at 5:42 AM

      Your disingenuous behavior never wears off. So, good for you, I guess. Continue to try and find loopholes to defend evil. Give it all the honorifics you want but that is all you do.

      Delete
    5. bmillerApril 14, 2026 at 12:07 PM

      Anonymous April 14, 2026 at 5:42 AM,

      I genuinely want commenters here to behave in a manner fitting to a philosophers blog. Do you really think this is the place for you if you think discussing the prudent balance between justice and mercy is tantamount to defending evil?

      If all you want to do is tell everyone Orange Man Bad I doubt there is anyone who has not heard the message by now. Mission accomplished.

      Delete
  31. AnonymousApril 12, 2026 at 8:25 PM

    A great Catholic schism due to Donald Trump? Fortify your battle lines MAGA Catholics. Your time is at hand to MAKE CATHOLICISM GREAT AGAIN. The man who knows all, is above all, now in Papal matters, has declared Louis, the Pope’s brother, to be ALL MAGA and thus, better fit to be Pope. I’m curious what Catholics will affirm these truths of Donald Trump. Let me know in the combox.

    ReplyDelete
  32. AnonymousApril 13, 2026 at 10:13 PM

    JD Vance, now as advice for the Pope as well. The POTUS and Veep, our religious authorities. How great. A majority of Catholics voted for this admin. Let the schism begin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerApril 14, 2026 at 7:51 AM

      This insolence goes way back too!

      "I do not speak for my Church on public matters—and the Church does not speak for me." JFK

      Delete
  33. AnonymousApril 14, 2026 at 12:34 PM

    Zionism is Catholicism's fault for rejecting the truth way back in the 2nd century by condemning Marcion who was right.

    ReplyDelete
  34. AnonymousApril 14, 2026 at 12:35 PM

    Let the Pope admit that Marcion was right. Let a council declare Marcion was correct. Or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ColeApril 15, 2026 at 12:01 PM

    The language of "false prophets, liars, and sycophants" is pretty strong, at least in Graham's case. While I don't agree with his judgments about Trump and the war, he doesn't appear to lend unqualified support to everything Trump is doing (he demurs from his rhetoric and other open immorality), but is pleased that the US stands to defeat the Iranian regime given his (perhaps erroneous) assumption that Iran is attempting genocide for the Jews. As for ignorant Elmer Gantry's and their Bibles, isn't it Biblical for God to "raise up" countries providentially to punish others while preparing them for condemnation (like the Babylonians in Isa. 13-14)? At one point is one justified in labelling a prominent minister or prelate as a false prophet, and not simply an otherwise virtuous man lacking in prudence?

    ReplyDelete
  36. AnonymousApril 17, 2026 at 10:13 AM

    Why are you praying for Israel? What does Israel have to do with you? Evangelical Zionists and the fake “Catholics” aligned with them are attacking your church and your pope; will you defend your church and your pope, or will you continue with this hypocrisy?

    ReplyDelete
  37. bmillerApril 19, 2026 at 7:28 AM

    I read once that Trump asked someone why there were so many boos at his rallies when he bragged about Operation Warp Speed. He then had to be told why as his inner circle had kept the reason away from him.

    This article suggests that demons are whispering in his ear and shaping his perceptions. It directly relates to the OP and even mentions Paula White:

    https://drheatherlynn.substack.com/p/are-world-leaders-possessed-the-ancient

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)