The Catholic Case Against War with Iran

In a recent Free Press article, Fr. Gerald Murray, pastor of a vibrant Manhattan parish, argued against Pope Leo and for the justice of the Iran war. Fr. Murray focuses on the permissibility of attacking Iran in theory, thereby avoiding the question of whether the Trump administration possesses right intention or lawful authority. Fr. Murray’s argument, like many arguments for the war, employs strategic ambiguity and equivocation about the nature of the threat Iran poses to the United States. These equivocations ultimately undermine the present case for war with Iran. In outlining the just criteria for war, Fr. Murray helpfully quotes from paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Fr. Murray rightly focuses his attention on the criterion that “the damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain.” But in his paraphrase (“The Catechism teaches that”), he changes the word “damage” to the more ambiguous “aggression.” This minor alteration has major consequences. While “damage” necessarily implies the use of military force, “aggression” is vague and could refer merely to hostile attitudes or threats. This ambiguity enables Fr. Murray to include Iran’s non-military hostility toward the United States under the heading of “aggression.” But more importantly, Fr. Murray equivocates between two kinds of aggression: (a) the past fifty years of Iran’s proxy sponsorship and (b) a possible Iranian nuclear attack in the future. By blurring the lines between these two kinds of aggression, Fr. Murray and other Iran hawks lend undue credence to their arguments for war. Proponents of war with Iran must identify one kind of damage from Iran that is lasting, grave, and certain. Multiple types of damage that each satisfy different criteria are not adequate. Otherwise, a country could point to a series of consistent but minor attacks in the past, imagine a possible grave attack, and use that imagined harm as a justification for waging war. Iran’s proxy and terror funding has certainly inflicted lasting damage on the United States. A nuclear attack on America would inflict grave damage. But neither type of damage on its own satisfies all three criteria—it is implausible that proxy funding constitutes grave damage, and a nuclear attack is far from certain. That said, Iran’s funding of anti-American proxies and terrorists has had tragic consequences. Over the past fifty years, at least hundreds of Americans have lost their lives to Iranian proxies. But it’s far from clear that these tragic losses amount to the kind of grave damage that would justify a retributive war. As Fr. John McHugh and Fr. Charles Callan write in their early 20th-century comprehensive manual, Moral Theology, war is “a state of conflict, and so differs from passing conflicts, such as battles, skirmishes, campaigns,” the likes of which Iran has waged against the United States. Thus, it is implausible that these passing conflicts alone justify the United States’ campaign in Iran. The war, which has killed over one thousand Iranian civilians so far, is not a proportionate response to the decades of Iranian terror and proxy sponsorship. Conversely, a nuclear attack from Iran would indeed be grave, but such an attack is far from certain. Iran’s hostility to America is clear, but it is unclear that such hostility would manifest in a nuclear or even conventional attack. It is, moreover, doubtful that an Iranian missile could even reach the United States. More likely, Iran would use a nuclear warhead as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the U.S. For decades, the United States has tolerated nuclear adversaries including Russia, China, and North Korea. This is not to say that a nuclear Iran would be desirable, but that the United States may not do evil that good might result and should instead use every available moral means to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear warhead. Moreover, the simple fact of Iran possessing nuclear weapons would still not be enough to justify a preventive attack. As St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, writes, “There is no doubt that since war generally brings in its train so many evils and so much harm to religion, to innocent people, to the honour of women, etc., in practice it is hardly ever just if declared on probable reasons of justice alone and not certain reasons.” In other words, the gravity of the decision to wage war demands certainty about the intentions of a possible aggressor. If a nuclear attack were certain, then war in Iran would be justified. In that case, attacking Iran would be a preemptive war, which just war theorists have historically recognized as legitimate. But under the current state of affairs, the attack on Iran is an impermissible preventive war because an Iranian nuclear attack is far from certain. But Fr. Murray treats Iran’s near half-century of aggression as if it settles the question of the certainty of a nuclear attack. He writes: Does this mean that one must wait for the enemy to attack before a nation can commence morally legitimate military action to neutralize the threat? No, that would be a dereliction of duty if the intent and capabilities of the prospective aggressor were known with certainty. The Iranian regime is a relentless enemy, using proxies to kill Americans and America’s allies. There is no doubt that Iran has been and presently is a grave threat. In other words, Fr. Murray asks one question, “If Iran were to possess nuclear weapons, would they be likely to use them?” and then answers yes to a different question, “Has Iran engaged in proxy warfare against the United States?” This equivocation ignores how activities such as arming Hezbollah, while malicious, are orders of magnitude less severe than a nuclear strike. Fr. Murray takes the fact that negotiations preceded the attack as “evidence that the strike was a last resort.” This is farcical. The mere presence of negotiations does not mean that the U.S. has availed itself of every available peaceful means. In fact, surprise attacks, like the one the U.S. launched in Iran, necessarily cannot be a last resort since the enemy never received an ultimatum by which they could have avoided the war. War is a grave matter, and a just war demands serious reasons for its initiation. Iran is far from an innocent nation, but this war is neither a proportionate nor appropriate response to Iran’s crimes. The Iran war is also not a preemptive response to an imminent grave threat. Iran hawks will argue that letting Iran build a nuclear weapon is risky, and they are no doubt correct. But unless a grave attack is certain, just war demands that we continue to escalate through sanctions and other non-violent means rather than resorting to war. This risk is a sacrifice to make, but there are few more worthy objects of sacrifice than justice. Contra Fr. Murray, Pope Leo has been largely correct in his assessment of the Iran war. For the sake of our country, and our souls, we should heed his warnings.