A preventive strike against
Iran, to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, by either Israel or the
United States would constitute an unjust war from both a Christian and a Jewish
perspective.
Of course, this presumes that
Iran would respond militarily to the strike, rather than passively accepting
the damage, as did Syria in the wake of Israel’s preventive strike against
Syria’s Osirak nuclear facility. If Iran did not respond militarily, the
preventive strike would constitute a military action other than war
Iran seems much more likely
than Syria to respond militarily. Iran is has more military might than does
Syria, more wealth, and believes that it can control the Straits of Hormuz.
Alternatively, Iran could respond short of war by stepping up its funding of
anti-Israeli Palestinian terrorists.
A just war must meet all six
criteria in the Christian Just War Theory tradition. First, the war must be to
defend people or property. Although Iran has made threats, the threats have
lacked follow-through. Possessing a weapon is not equivalent to using the weapon.
Funding terrorists is not the same as declaring war, e.g., although the U.S.
funded Afghan mujahidin fighting against the Soviets, both the Soviets and the
U.S. recognized that the U.S. was not waging war on the U.S.S.R. In short, Iran
having nuclear weapons does not constitute just cause.
Second, the war must be waged
with right authority. Debate swirls as to whether right authority is national
or international. In view of that debate, I’m willing to cede right authority.
Third, the war must be waged
with right intent. The only right intent is progress toward peace. Starting an
avoidable war is not progress toward peace.
Fourth, the war must have a
reasonable chance of success. Strikes to destroy nuclear weapons’ development
capacity are unlikely to succeed; the more likely outcome is to delay
development rather than to preclude development of nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, the measure of success is progress toward peace, not military
victory. Even if Israel or the United States could permanently terminate Iran’s
development of nuclear weapons, the enmity between Iran and ourselves would
increase rather than diminish; the odds of war would have increased rather than
diminished. In other words, military success is unlikely; progress toward peace
is even more unlikely.
Fifth, the war must be
proportional, i.e., the casualties the war causes must be fewer than the
casualties doing nothing would have caused. This seems unlikely, but again I’m
willing to cede the point that a preventive strike might cause fewer casualties.
The number of casualties includes the total injured and killed on all sides;
God values all lives equally.
Sixth and finally, the war must
be a last resort. As I’ve repeatedly argued in this blog, Iran possessing
nuclear weapons is not the end of the world. Iran has the same national
aspirations and values as other nations; Iran has no desire for oblivion or
nuclear winter. Iran and Israel could learn to co-exist with a policy of mutual
assured destruction similar to the Cold War standoff between the U.S. and
U.S.S.R.
In sum, from a Christian Just
War Theory perspective, a preemptive attack on Iran to destroy Iran’s capacity
to develop nuclear weapons satisfies no more than four, and probably none, of
the six jus ad bellum criteria for assessing whether a potential war is morally
just.
From a Jewish perspective, the
only moral war is a defensive war. The two other Jewish ethical categories of
war (the commanded and the optional) are no longer options. The rabbinical
tradition is clear: the criteria for both commanded and optional wars entail
impossible requirements or institutions that do not exist (e.g., direct
revelation from God, the monarchy, and the Sanhedrin).
A preemptive strike on Iran is
not defensive. Iran has not attacked Israel. In spite of bellicose rhetoric,
Iran may never attack Israel.
Remember Saddam Hussein? He
intended his bellicosity to impress others, even though his threats were empty,
as the absence of weapons of mass destruction in post-conquest Iraq proved.
Remember Khrushchev? He promised to destroy the U.S., but the U.S.S.R. in spite
of repeated threats never attacked and eventually collapsed.
Not all threats are empty. But
nations wisely respond to actions rather than to words. Otherwise, the world
would have far more wars than it does. Being just, seeking to live in a manner
faithful to God, involves risk and trust. Peace requires living with the
possibility of war because the only option to peace is war, which is certainly
evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment