Contra Pope Leo, Catholic Just War Doctrine Supports Iran Strikes

Parolin cited a consequential Catholic Standard interview earlier in the month as justification for his claim, in which Cardinal Robert W. McElroy, archbishop of Washington, stated that the United States’ decision to strike Iran fails to meet the just war threshold “in at least three requirements.” First, McElroy erroneously claims the strikes are not in response to an “existing or imminent and objectively verifiable attack by Iran.” This is unsupported by decades of attacks on American warfighters and civilians perpetrated by the Islamic Republic either directly or via Iran’s numerous terror proxies. McElroy is wrong to insinuate that Iran has not attacked the United States or Israel. That Iran attacks the U.S. and our allies via thinly veiled proxies instead of directly does not absolve the regime of responsibility for the devastation of its malign activities. Next, McElroy asserts that, by lacking a clearly defined intention, the U.S.-led strikes “cannot satisfy the just war tradition’s criterion of right intention,” claiming the stated objectives have ranged from the destruction of Iran’s military to the overthrow of the regime. Here, McElroy confuses strategic objectives with moral intentions. The intent of U.S. and Israeli military action is to eliminate Iran’s ability to field offensive military capabilities to harm civilians, as well as U.S. and allied soldiers. Achieving this goal can include the simultaneous pursuit of several strategic objectives in service of the broader end goal. The dynamic and escalatory nature of war can sometimes require the reevaluation of the original strategic objectives or the addition of new ones. Such rational and deliberate recalculation does not inhibit the right intention of a just war; in fact, it is a necessary characteristic of one. Finally, McElroy states, “It is far from clear that the benefits of this war will outweigh the harm which will be done.” But this is not the standard the Catholic Catechism uses in determining just war. As the Catechism declares, “There must be serious prospects of success” and “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.” U.S. and Israeli strikes have met both these strict conditions, with chances of success increasing by the day, and the clear common good achieved of Iran’s diminishing ability to launch offensive attacks with precise, targeted, and proportional military action by the U.S. and its allies. In his own words, Cardinal Parolin condemned U.S. and Israeli strikes, saying, “it is complex to determine who is right and who is wrong.” This statement ignores the almost five decades Iran has spent undermining regional stability, sowing destruction through its proxies, and massacring its own people. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic and its proxies have targeted, wounded, and killed Americans while championing the “Death to America” slogan that was first popularized during the Islamic Revolution in Iran. In recent years, the regime has systematically advanced its nuclear weapons program while violating its international obligations, using diplomacy as a stalling tactic rather than a genuine path to resolution. Just War Doctrine, as meticulously developed by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, has long provided a framework for discerning when force is not only permissible, but morally obligatory. Rooted in natural law, it stipulates criteria such as just cause, right intention, and proportionality, allowing for defensive wars against aggression and the protection of innocent lives. When entrenched aggressors perpetuate cycles of violence, pacifism isn’t a virtue; it’s a dereliction of duty. It equates the aggressor with the defender, and ultimately, cedes the moral high ground to those who wield power without restraint. President Donald Trump made it clear when he took office that a nuclear Iran poses an unacceptable threat to the United States and our allies. In June 2025, Tehran’s rapidly advancing program reached a critical juncture, resulting in decisive action by Israel and the United States after prolonged negotiation attempts failed. In February 2026, Trump resumed negotiations in Oman and Geneva in an attempt to bring an end to the theocratic regime’s nuclear program once and for all. These negotiations followed the Islamic Republic’s brutal murder of more than 30,000 of its own citizens for protesting against the regime’s oppression. When the talks failed again, Trump took decisive action to ensure the world would never be subjected to an Iranian nuclear umbrella: an intelligible (and moral) goal as necessitated by just war doctrine. Suggesting multilateralism and dialogue as the only legitimate solutions myopically ignores how authoritarian regimes routinely exploit such approaches to buy time and wage further destruction. As Winston Churchill once quipped about appeasement, it’s like feeding the crocodile in the hopes that it will eat you last. Such policies don’t foster peace; they enable oppression. Meanwhile, Church leadership has been notably silent on the fact that the Pax Americana has presided over an unprecedented era in which the number of interstate wars has plummeted, global trade has exploded, and billions have been lifted out of poverty—all thanks to the security deterrent provided by American military power. The Church’s teachings on war and peace demand careful discernment as well as decisive action. History has repeatedly demonstrated that conflicts can sometimes only be resolved by confronting evil through the use of force. The Holy See, under Pope Leo XIV’s leadership, must pursue a different approach to navigating geopolitical turmoil, one which emphasizes the morality of lawful self-defense, recognizing that endless dialogue with murderous and bad-faith regimes is futile. This would bring the Church’s public statements more in line with what the Catechism prescribes, which calls legitimate defense not only a right but a “grave duty” and states clearly, “the defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” This is precisely what the U.S. and Israeli military strikes are directed toward: the disarming of Iran’s offensive capabilities and the safeguarding the world from the whims of a nuclear-armed terror state.