(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Israel, Iran, and the United States: When is an act of war ethically justified? [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-06-29

On Friday, June 13, Israel began bombing various sites in Iran which it said were associated with the development of nuclear weapons. Israel justified the bombing as preventive since Iran has consistently threatened the destruction of Israel. The bombing destroyed facilities and killed key military, government, and scientific research officials. In response, Iran launched missiles and drones. The two nations have exchanged attacks for the last week, resulting in extensive damage and deaths. Of major concern is the nuclear testing facility located at Fordo, which is built deep enough underground to withstand conventional weapons. The only nation with a weapon capable of reaching the facility is the US. The “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” (MOP) is a 30,000 pound bomb that can reach a depth up to 200 feet and that can only be delivered by the U.S. B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber. There has been increasing discussion and pressure for the US to join the war, to defend its ally, and destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. Yesterday, June 21, President Trump ordered the US military to bomb three nuclear development sites. Is such action ethically justified?

Just War Theory is a doctrine that outlines the ethical criteria for when it is morally permissible to engage in war. It addresses both the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum) and the conduct of war itself (jus in bello). The theory was first developed by Saint Augustine and subsequently expanded by Saint Thomas Aquinas as a guide to limit the death, destruction, and horrors of war. The intent is to reconcile the competing values that taking human life is wrong with the necessity of defending justice and protecting innocent lives.

There are six criteria for going to war.

• Just Cause: Nations must have a legitimate reason for going to war, such as self-defense or to correct a wrong. Iran has a long pattern of supporting proxies hostile to Israel, such as, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthi rebels. Iran has consistently voiced its intent to destroy Israel. Israel stated it acted in self-defense to prevent a future attack by Iran, allegedly through the use of a nuclear weapon. Yesterday’s bombing by the US aligns with Israel’s justification. These dynamics raises the question: Do Iran’s actions involving nuclear development present an imminent threat to Israel that would justify the actions of Israel and the US? Ethically, just war doctrine allows for a military response to a previous attack and to preempt preparations for a present attack. However, military action to prevent a future, ambiguous threat is not justified. There is conflicting intelligence regarding the eminence of the threat against Israel. Just because Israel feels threatened, does not indicate there is an actual threat. Therefore, the actions of Israel and the US are questionable regarding just cause.

• Right Intention: Nations must have a sincere motivation to pursue justice and peace, not aggression, territorial gain, or other ulterior motive. Israel appears to have a right intention in protecting its citizens, preserving its territory, and defending its system of government. Self-defense and securing the safety and security of its population would certainly be considered a sincere motivation. In this, we can find no fault. However, right intention cannot be the only criteria for military action. The intentions of the US, specifically President Trump, on the other hand, are suspect. What is his motivation for bombing the nuclear sites in Iran? Historically, the intention of US foreign policy has involved preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. There are several avenues to achieve that intent, including diplomacy and economic sanctions. As discussed below, acts of war should be considered a last resort. The question remains: To what degree is President Trump‘s motivation based on justice, peace, and defense of the US and of Israel as an ally? Or, as some have suggested, is his motivation based on the desire for control and influence in the Middle East and on a narcissistic drive to appear strong and powerful? Right intention to engage in an act of war must be purely altruistic. Any element of self-interest would corrupt a sincere motivation. Therefore, President Trump‘s motivation is questionable.

• Legitimate Authority: Only a recognized, sovereign authority may declare war, not individuals or private groups. In the US, the Congress is the sovereign authority for declaring war, not the president. By ordering the bombing of Iran, President Trump has usurped the authority of the US Congress and violated the US Constitution. He has not presented evidence that would justify bombing Iran to the US Congress and requested authorization to conduct acts of war. Therefore, the US bombing of Iran was illegitimate, illegal, and unconstitutional.

• Last Resort: Nations must exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic options before resorting to war. Nations in conflict are often driven to take the path of least resistance, ignoring the consequences of death and destruction. In 2015, the Obama administration collaborated with other allies to develop a peaceful and diplomatic solution to Iran‘s nuclear development program. The agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was an accord reached in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The agreement included provisions to limit and monitor Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. However, in 2018, President Trump withdrew United States from the agreement, which subsequently collapsed. The agreement had been successful and effective. Had the agreement remained in place, there would not be a threat of nuclear warfare on the part of Iran. Within the last few weeks, the Trump administration had been negotiating with Iran on a deal that would resemble the JCPOA. However, those talks ended as a result of Israel’s bombing of Iran on June 13. On June 21, as diplomatic negotiations were taking place in Europe, President Trump ordered bombings of three nuclear development sites in Iran. Therefore, the bombing by the US is obviously not a last resort.

• Reasonable Chance of Success: There must be a realistic prospect of achieving the intended just outcome. There seems to be no clear description of success for this bombing operation or this war. Therefore, how will we know if success has been achieved? The actions of Israel and the US in bombing Iran‘s nuclear development sites may achieve an immediate goal of deterring research and production. However, the long-term success and right intent of creating peace, safety, and security is questionable. Coercion through hostility rarely results in peace. It is a false assumption that one bombing campaign will achieve the deterrence of Iran’s nuclear program and the security of Israel. The likelihood is that these bombings will serve to exacerbate the tensions between these nations, resulting in increased hostilities in the escalation of war. Also, there is the possibility, even probability, that other nations, such as Russia and China, will involve themselves either directly or indirectly. A reasonable chance of success of creating peace in the region as a result of the bombing is doubtful.

• Proportionality: The harm caused by the war must be less impactful than the good that is expected to be achieved. The benefits of the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites are ambiguous and ill-defined. Since there is no clear description of success other than stopping immediate nuclear development, conducting an ethical cost benefit analysis is challenging. Regarding the harm, there is the immediate and obvious harm inflicted upon civilian lives and property, both in the attacks on Iran and the retaliatory strikes on Israel. However, there are other more long-term and strategic consequences. Iran is bordered on its west by the Persian Gulf, a key feature of which is the Straight of Hormuz, a narrow shipping passage that Iran controls. Approximately 20 million values of oil, or about 20% of the world’s daily oil consumption, passes through the Straight of Hormuz. Approximately 30% of the global seaborne oil trade and approximately 20% of the global liquefied natural gas trade passes through this straight. Iran could potentially shut down this shipping lane by installing mines. Another strategic consequence involves the loss of US diplomatic credibility with Iran and the involvement of Russia and China. Iran will most likely turn to those nations for support. Additionally, the US has no influence with Iran and must turn to other influential nations, such as China. This makes the US beholden to China, who persistently seeks to expand its Silk Road initiative for global trade. Additionally, an assumption is that Iran may authorize its global proxies to target US citizens abroad. These brief scenarios indicate that the harm inflicted by these bombings through increased oil and liquefied natural gas prices, the US loss of diplomatic credibility and influence, US dependence on its rivals in great power competition, and increased risk for US citizens clearly outweighs any benefits.

Based on the six criteria of just war doctrine, the bombing by Israel is questionable, and the bombing of United States is clearly unethical. When we say that something is ethical, we mean that people, organizations, and nations act in ways that enable us to live in peace, harmony, and safety, guided by fairness, justice, and mutual respect. President Trump has clearly violated just war principles of legitimate authority, last resort, the reasonable chance of success, and proportionality. His adherence to the principles of just cause and right intention are questionable. Therefore, we can only conclude he acted with mixed motives to pursue an unjust end, completely disregarding unintended second and third order effects. This is the latest example of a person in leadership who lacks the ability of critical thinking, whose decisions reflect a personal agenda and result in disaster.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/29/2330732/-Israel-Iran-and-the-United-States-When-is-an-act-of-war-ethically-justified?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.