The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran compels us as Christians to answer two important questions: Is this current war a justified war? Is war ever justified?
The question of justifiable warfare is an age-old question philosophers and theologians have wrestled with dating back to the days of Augustine (A.D. 354-430), who is credited as being the first formal advocate of just war theory. Augustine articulated a rationale for when war could be morally permissible.
The most systematic exposition of the theory was outlined by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).
The modern expression for principles “before, during, and after” a “just war” center around three Latin phrases: Jus ad Bellum (“right to war”), Jus in Bello (“justice in war”), and Jus post Bellum (“justice after war”).
The following six principles apply to a permissible Jus ad Bellum rationale for initiating a war according to just war theory.
Six principles of just war
1. Just cause: Before military action is taken there must be a legitimate cause for engagement. The only justifiable reasons for military engagement are self-defense, the defense of others, and intervention in cases of extreme human rights violations.
2. Legitimate authority: War may only be declared by official governments. According to just war theory, it is not permissible for private citizens or insurgent groups to declare war.
3. Right intention: Establishing a just peace must be the only military objective for war. Its intention is never for territorial gain or retribution.
4. Last resort: Before war is initiated, all peaceful avenues must have been thoroughly explored. All negotiation attempts, such as diplomacy, legal recourse, and economic sanctions, must be fully exhausted before war is initiated.
Sign up for our weekly edition and get all our headlines in your inbox on Thursdays
5. Reasonable chance of success: Without reasonable expectations of achieving just objectives, military engagement should never be executed.
6. Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of war must be carefully balanced against the proportionate harm and destruction that may be caused. The protection of innocent civilian life must be of highest priority in any military engagement.
Arguments for and against
Attempting to objectively apply these six principles of just war theory to the current U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, the following arguments, both for and against, are proposed:
1. Just cause
Arguments for: Both Washington and Jerusalem have asserted military action was a preemptive step to neutralize imminent threats of possible nuclear armament or deployment by Iran.
Arguments against: The Islamic Republic and many international observers contend the conflict initiated by the U.S. and Israel constitutes an unlawful, unprovoked, and preemptive attack. Critics assert the decapitation of Iran’s senior leadership and reported casualties in civilian-populated areas have resulted in an ever-evolving cycle of retaliation.
2. Legitimate authority
Arguments for: Both the U.S. and Israel took military action authorized by legitimate governments. However, significant constitutional questions continue within the U.S. regarding the necessity of congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Arguments against: International legal observers question whether this war meets the stringent requirements for self-defense as codified in Article 51, Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. The killing of a national sovereign leader and the legitimacy of preemptive force without a clearly demonstrated imminent threat calls into question the legality of this war.
3. Right intention
Arguments for: The stated objectives of the U.S. and Israel center on the neutralization of imminent terrorist threats and the permanent prevention of Iranian nuclear weaponization.
Arguments against: Critics argue the stated objectives of both the U.S. and Israel are unclear, constantly changing, and most confusing. Is this engagement about the elimination of nuclear threats, the destruction of missile capabilities, the annihilation of the Iranian Navy, or the neutralization of regional proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis?
A focused “right intention” for war must be clearly articulated, and this is not the case with this current war.
4. Last resort
Arguments for: Proponents assert recent attempts at diplomacy had failed or at best had reached a hopeless impasse. Military action was only taken after prolonged strategic restraint.
Arguments against: Opponents counter the diplomatic track remained a viable option and productive talks were ongoing. Steps such as more rigorous international oversight and monitoring of Iran’s missile and nuclear enrichment sites had yet to be fully explored.
5. Reasonable chance of success
Arguments for: Initial assessments indicate U.S. and Israeli military actions have severely incapacitated Iranian ballistic and naval capabilities. Such success in the early days of the campaign supports a reasonable outlook for continued success throughout the remaining operation.
Arguments against: Strategically, Iran’s retaliation throughout the region has escalated to some 20 countries, compromised vital shipping lanes, and created the potential deployment of ground troops. These developments suggest the prospect of “success” remains tenuous and uncertain.
6. Proportionality
Arguments for: Proponents argue the initial military action was limited in its scope and focused in its execution with only strategic targets identified. A larger offensive was justified only in order to neutralize Iran’s retaliatory capacity.
Arguments against: Critics counter the magnitude of the campaign, which included the targeting of Iran’s senior leadership, exceeded the measures necessary to eliminate any threat of imminent attack.
The initial military action inevitably precipitated broader geopolitical and economic instability, including significant shocks to global oil markets, rising gas prices, and jolts to national and international stock markets.
Mounting civilian casualties, including 168 girls killed in an attack on an elementary school in Minab, Iran, and 13 U.S. military casualties to date, calls into question a proper proportionality of this war.
A Christian response
Whichever side of the debate one embraces regarding the current U.S. and Israeli war with Iran, as Christians, we believe war must always be perceived and evaluated through a biblical, theological, ethical, and moral lens. We believe war should never be a purely political undertaking. And hasn’t history repeatedly shown us that not all wars are justified wars?
As believers, we have a solemn duty to do our “due diligence” in evaluating any rationale for war from a Christian perspective. We have a solemn duty to be good and engaged citizens by letting our decision makers know of our biblically informed positions.
We have a solemn duty to be the “salt of the earth and the light of the world” as influencers in our nation and especially in our nation’s involvement in any war. We have a solemn duty to protect all human life, because we believe allhumans are created in the image of God and all humans are precious and valued by God.
As Christians, we contend war is always evil because of its cost to human lives.
Is war ever justified? Is this current war justified? Perhaps a case can be made that war may become a “necessaryevil.” Is this war with Iran necessary, or is it a necessary (or unnecessary) evil?
Questions about war and its consequences can be argued, discussed, and debated as they have been for thousands of years. But in light of this current conflict in the Middle East, it behooves all believers to pray for peace throughout the Middle East and other war-torn regions around the globe.
Call to pray
As 1 Timothy 2:1-4 exhorts us:
“I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (NIV).
And as Matthew 5:9 reminds us: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (NIV).
As this current U.S.-Israeli war continues, may we all continue to pray for peace in the Middle East and for our decision makers to become peacemakers and not peace-breakers. This is an appropriate Christian response to this war and all wars.
Jim Lemons is director of the Master of Arts in Theological Studies program and professor of theological studies in the Graduate School of Ministry at Dallas Baptist University. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.
We seek to connect God’s story and God’s people around the world. To learn more about God’s story, click here.
Send comments and feedback to Eric Black, our editor. For comments to be published, please specify “letter to the editor.” Maximum length for publication is 300 words.