nuclear-news

A Catholic guide to understanding the war with Iran

by Kevin Clarke, America, March 6, 2026

“…………………………… First of all, what do we call this thing that the United States and Israel have begun, which has so far cost more than 1,000 lives in Iran and 12 in Israel and taken the lives of six U.S. service members? In his declaration announcing the attack, Mr. Trump described the joint Israeli/U.S. air campaign as “major combat operations in Iran.”

Since the strikes began, members of Congress who support that “major combat operation” have struggled to classify it, reluctant to refer to it as a war, perhaps attempting to avoid the delicate problem of constitutional limits on the executive to engage in war-making. The framers of the American Constitution, concerned about the possibility of a renegade, unbound executive abusing this gravest authority, reserved that power to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. You can look it up.

But like Congresses before them that demurred as former presidents began a “police action” in Korea, trudged deeper into the big muddy of the Vietnam War or cheerfully pronounced “mission accomplished” as the epic misadventure in Iraq unraveled, the current U.S. Congress has preferred to leave the authority to engage in this latest war (and perhaps ultimately the blame for it) to the Trump administration.

Some members of Congress have settled on “significant military campaign” to describe the conflict, too akin to the Putin-ish “special military operation” to my ears. Others argue that the attacks on Iran can’t be called a war until U.S. boots are on the ground—something not ruled out by the White House.

But I say if it looks like a war, bombs like a war, takes the lives of combatant and noncombatant alike like a war, it’s probably a war.

International humanitarian law, 19th- and 20th-century conventions and agreements meant to temper state tensions that lead to conflict as well as the behavior of warring parties, is likely to be further undermined by this new war. It may seem absurd to seek moral limitations on conduct in something as barbaric as war-making, but I.H.L. had notable practical successes over time in terms of the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of noncombatants. In recent years it has included conventions abolishing land mines and chemical and biological weapons.

The primary international law that seems to have been violated by the United States and Israel is the U.N. Charter’s prohibition of the use of force except in self-defense. The United States, whose diplomats were among the founders of the United Nations just after the horrorshow of World War II, is a signatory to the U.N. Charter and presumably willingly governed by its prohibitions against wars of aggression or choice.

In the past, the United States has turned to the United Nations to provide a veneer of legitimate authority to its military actions in Korea, during the Gulf War, various Iraq incursions and other military campaigns in Kosovo, Haiti, Libya and Syria. The Trump administration this time did not bother to seek U.N. cover for its attack on Iran, extending its disdain for the United Nations to perhaps this ultimate conclusion. But U.N. officials should not feel especially slighted since the president similarly did not bother to seek an authorization from the U.S. Congress.

Self-proclaimed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has made a point of mocking the niceties of international law as the United States continues an illegal campaign to kill alleged drug smugglers across the Caribbean Sea. He has, with alarming gusto, asserted that U.S. forces, or warriors as he prefers to call service members, will not be limited by international law or “woke” rules of engagement; they will instead be focused on victory, whatever the cost. He appears to be a man of his word in this regard.

A New York Times analysis points to U.S. forces as the likely author of a missile strike on an elementary school that claimed 175 lives, mostly schoolgirls, on Feb. 28. The U.S. military has so far not confirmed its role in the strike nor apologized for its gruesome outcome.

A Just War or just more war? 

The church’s just war tradition has been challenged by contemporary theologians as insufficient and outdated, yet it remains a worthy filter through which to judge the moral defensibility of a turn to war-making. Jus ad bellum is the church’s tradition of moral instruction meant to guide discernment before making the decisions to begin an armed conflict. Jus in bello is the church tradition that governs behavior during armed conflict.

According to just war teaching, conflict can only be joined as an act of self-defense or in defense of an ally, though it may be engaged to protect the vulnerable or respond to a grave threat. Intention in choosing armed conflict cannot be darkened by a desire for vengeance or retribution but focused on preventing a greater evil and the restoration of peace.

War-making must be a last resort, all peaceful avenues of resolution having been exhausted. The use of force must be proportional, that is, the suffering it prevents must be greater than the misery it is likely to create. The conflict cannot be the cause of more disorder and evil than those it seeks to address. In conflict, belligerents must discriminate between combatant and noncombatant, taking all measures to protect the latter.

The administration seems to have ignored or violated a number of these preconditions and prohibitions in its decision to go to war with Iran………………………………………………………………………………….https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/weekly-dispatch/2026/03/06/iran-israel-united-states-catholic-just-war/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=A%20Catholic%20guide%20to%20understanding%20the%20war%20with%20Iran%E2%80%8B&utm_campaign=Daily%203%206%2026

March 9, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Religion and ethics