Military historian Victor Davis Hanson has an interesting analysis of the coming with with Iran and the reasons behind it.
Interestingly, he ends the piece with a direct appeal to Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who may well be one of the hostage-takers from the 1970s Iran Hostage Crisis) to change his course before war becomes inevitable. He writes:
Ever since September 11, the subtext of this war could be summed up as something like, “Suburban Jason, with his iPod, godlessness, and earring, loves to live too much to die, while Ali, raised as the 11th son of an impoverished but devout street-sweeper in Damascus, loves death too much to live.” The Iranians, like bin Laden, promulgate this mythical antithesis, which, like all caricatures, has elements of truth in it. But what the Iranians, like the al Qaedists, do not fully fathom, is that Jason, upon concluding that he would lose not only his iPod and earring, but his entire family and suburb as well, is capable of conjuring up things far more frightening than anything in the 8th-century brain of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately, the barbarity of the nightmares at Antietam, Verdun, Dresden, and Hiroshima prove that well enough.
So far the Iranian president has posed as someone 90-percent crazy and 10-percent sane, hoping we would fear his overt madness and delicately appeal to his small reservoirs of reason. But he should understand that if his Western enemies appear 90-percent children of the Enlightenment, they are still effused with vestigial traces of the emotional and unpredictable. And military history shows that the irrational 10 percent of the Western mind is a lot scarier than anything Islamic fanaticism has to offer.
So, please, Mr. Ahmadinejad, cool the rhetoric fast — before you needlessly push once reasonable people against the wall, and thus talk your way into a sky full of very angry and righteous jets.
That’s just the conclusion, though.
I must agree with the writer that Bush 43 seems the least poll-driven president in my memory, which bugs the heck out of some.
I hear that we have been testing some really big conventional bombs out in the desert southwest. If I were Mr. Ahmadinejad, I wouldn’t be too confident of predicting what President Bush might do.
Iran can be trusted to do only what they think is in their best interests. They seem to have already decided that aquiring “the bomb” is worth whatever risk comes from giving the finger to the international community.
The alternative being a nuclear-armed Iran, a conventional preemptive strike(s) seems a sane option.
Do you all really think that Iran is a treat to world peace? Aren’t the U.S.A. and the British governments that should be taken to the Security Council for failing to comply with N.P.T by illegally arming the 60-year old state of Israel with nukes and related technology? Israel (a U.S. ally) has not even signed the NPT and already has the Bomb!! It was the U.S.A. that used nukes in a won war just for the sake of blackmailing the world and for performing a real testing on real people for real results. Don’t forget that the state of Israel has invaded all its neighbors (with no exception) in the past forty years. Also, remember that the USA has illegally (without U.N. permission) invaded sovereign countries like Cuba, Vietnam, Panama, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq. As a result of these devil acts, millions of innocent people have died and many more have suffered. Never forget the million tons of chemical bombs dropped on the civilians in Vietnam. The USA has used constantly WMD in all of its important wars of aggression.
But, surprisingly, Iran has never invaded another country, and has never used weapons of mass destruction or any other illegal weapons, even when it was invaded and partly occupied by then U.S. ally “Saddam Hussein”.
Saad Massah
What’s your opinion, Jimmy? Does Catholic just-war doctrine require us (USA, for instance) to wait until the Iranian regime has nuked 10 million people to death (Israelis, for instance) and contaminated an entire region of the globe before we have any warrant to act militarily?
I recently spoke with a lower or mid level Israeli official and diplomat who was of the opinion that Radical Islam is today’s big threat to the free world, like Nazism and fascism in the 1930’s and 40’s and Communism in the Cold War. I fear he may be correct, especially if Iran gets “the bomb.” This is therefore a very serious matter and better material for a preemptive strike than Iraq ever was. It would also be a much harder war.
On the other hand war is a consequence of sin. “Immorality is un-American and a threat to national security” said Fr. John Corapi and President Bush after him. “The fruit of abortion is nuclear war” said Mother Theresa. It would behoove America and the West as a whole to remember Sodom and Gomorrah, and also Nineveh.
Yes.
No.
I’ll leave the rest of the propaganda alone as that is all it is.
Do you all really think that Iran is a treat to world peace?
Yes, given their obvious desire to obtain nuclear weapons and stated desire to use them to annihilate Israel.
Aren’t the U.S.A. and the British governments that should be taken to the Security Council for failing to comply with N.P.T by illegally arming the 60-year old state of Israel with nukes and related technology?
No, because we never armed them with nuclear weapons. If anyone did, it was the French.
Israel (a U.S. ally) has not even signed the NPT and already has the Bomb!!
Which makes it perfectly legal for them to have the bomb. Furthermore, they’re rational. Notice how the Arab cities haven’t gone *poof* yet, despite Israel having nuclear weapons for decades?
It was the U.S.A. that used nukes in a won war just for the sake of blackmailing the world and for performing a real testing on real people for real results.
Even if we grant your point, which I believe to be utter bunk, that was 60 years ago. Time has shown that the US can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Don’t forget that the state of Israel has invaded all its neighbors (with no exception) in the past forty years.
Yes, with legitimate casus belli every time.
Also, remember that the USA has illegally (without U.N. permission) invaded sovereign countries like Cuba, Vietnam, Panama, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Hardly illegal. What laws did we break?
As a result of these devil acts, millions of innocent people have died and many more have suffered.
Unfortunate, but that’s what happens in war.
Never forget the million tons of chemical bombs dropped on the civilians in Vietnam.
Oh please. The only chemical weapons used in Vietnam were Agent Orange, an herbicide that *may* be carcinogenic, something we didn’t know at the time and can’t be faulted for not knowing.
The USA has used constantly WMD in all of its important wars of aggression.
Start naming those wars and the WMDs used. I’d love to see how Pearl Harbor was an instance of US aggression.
But, surprisingly, Iran has never invaded another country, and has never used weapons of mass destruction or any other illegal weapons, even when it was invaded and partly occupied by then U.S. ally “Saddam Hussein”.
Actually Iran attacked neutral nations and shipping as part of that war (which is why we smacked around the Iranian Navy). Furthermore, Iran has been actively aiding the insurgency in Iraq, which counts as invasion in my book.
I mostly agree with Paul Druce, but lets never dismiss loss of life, especially civiliam life, as inevitable, and always try to minimize it. The bliz and nuclear bombs of WWII were inexcusable because they did not discriminate between civilians and military, or even targeted civilians.
Weapons used today are not as indescriminatory, but still often kill civilians which is tragic and must be kept in mind when concidering their use. We should tremble with fear at the thought of taking even one human life.
The War in Iraq probably was unjust, in my opinion. Even more so if the President knew Iraq didn’t have WMD’s, which I don’t think he did. Vietnam is a bit harder, but likely was also none of our business. If America would not try to be the policemen of the world we would be much safer. On the other hand each situation must be judged on its own merits. If the Iraq war was unjust, that does not mean any war waged by the U.S. is. Afghanistan, for instance, was a direct threat to the security of the U.S. and the world, as 9/11 proved. Iran could soon become an even bigger threat.
Is America such a threat to other contries, perhaps, but we do not attack free countries that just want to live in peace like we do. Radical Islam, like Nazism and Communism, seems to want to destroy or absorb all that is outside of it, to conquer or enslave the world.
“Vietnam is a bit harder, but likely was also none of our business. If America would not try to be the policemen of the world we would be much safer.”
I used to believe that, but I think if you look at the strategy of containment as a whole, you have to conclude that, really, it worked. We simply outspent and exhausted the CCCP until it collapsed.
I think if we did try not to be the world’s policeman, we might be safer… for a little while. The fact is, in many ways, we are expected to be the world’s policeman (and EMT) and behaving as if we aren’t mostly does more harm than good.
Interesting piece. thx.
Oh please. The only chemical weapons used in Vietnam were Agent Orange, an herbicide that *may* be carcinogenic, something we didn’t know at the time and can’t be faulted for not knowing.
And then there was napalm. And we also used ‘Agents’ of other colors than Orange. If you look at the children in the generations immediately following our use of these agents, it is pretty clear that not only were they carcinogenic (both to our soldiers and the ‘intended’ victims), but also teratogenic (causing birth defects and an increase in spontaneous abortions). By the late 60s, we were, in fact, starting to learn that dioxins had long term effects, but not how serious they would be.
Whether or not Vietnam was a just war, we were in it with the mindset that we were going to do whatever it took to win, whether those actions were moral or not.
Even if we grant your point, which I believe to be utter bunk, that was 60 years ago. Time has shown that the US can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Yes. We have plainly shown we can hold large stores of nuclear weapons and not use them. Except that our current administration wanted to develop and test ‘bunker-buster’ nukes a few years back and I’ve heard rumors are talking about the possible use of ‘tactical nukes’ in Iran. I don’t think that those are exactly sterling examples of trust-worthiness as far as nuclear weapons are concerned.
On the other hand war is a consequence of sin. “Immorality is un-American and a threat to national security” said Fr. John Corapi and President Bush after him. “The fruit of abortion is nuclear war” said Mother Theresa. It would behoove America and the West as a whole to remember Sodom and Gomorrah, and also Nineveh.
Therefore, since we as a nation are sinful, we should commit another ‘pre-emptive war’ against a nation that has not, as a nation, harmed us directly in close to 30 years, because they could possibly bring the consequences of our sin upon us by attacking us?
“Therefore, since we as a nation are sinful, we should commit another ‘pre-emptive war’ against a nation that has not, as a nation, harmed us directly in close to 30 years, because they could possibly bring the consequences of our sin upon us by attacking us?”
So, your saying that we should welcome a nuke attack on New York as Divine Discipline?
So, are you one of those that sees hurricane Katrina as divine retribution for Mardi Gras? Why bother rebuilding the levees? God might want to send another storm.
By all means, let’s wait until Iran makes good on their promise to wipe Israel off the map, then we can all feel better about ourselves.
Hanson’s penned a feel-good scenario about war with Iran, happy ending and all. He should go back to writing about Ancient Greek vineyards.
So, who here would be willing to, let’s say, abort one baby in order to prevent a nuclear war?
And then there was napalm.
Napalm, while a horrific weapon, is still a legitimate weapon of war, both morally and legally.
And we also used ‘Agents’ of other colors than Orange. If you look at the children in the generations immediately following our use of these agents, it is pretty clear that not only were they carcinogenic (both to our soldiers and the ‘intended’ victims), but also teratogenic (causing birth defects and an increase in spontaneous abortions). By the late 60s, we were, in fact, starting to learn that dioxins had long term effects, but not how serious they would be.
And today knowing how bad those effects are we would be obliged not to use those weapons. Back then we didn’t, no moral problem in their use.
Yes. We have plainly shown we can hold large stores of nuclear weapons and not use them. Except that our current administration wanted to develop and test ‘bunker-buster’ nukes a few years back and I’ve heard rumors are talking about the possible use of ‘tactical nukes’ in Iran. I don’t think that those are exactly sterling examples of trust-worthiness as far as nuclear weapons are concerned.
And how are either of those examples of untrustorthiness with nuclear weapons? The bunker busters are being developed because we have a need for that in the inventory, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons has been a long possibility. If you want to try and claim that we are untrustworthy with nuclear weapons, the old Pentomic divisions are your best bet (Short description: If they were attacked, the only way that they could fight back was to use nuclear weapons, which then caused us to bring out our bomber fleets and illustrate the doctrine of massive retaliation).
When I refer to Iran as being untrustworthy with nuclear weapons, it means quite simply that they cannot be trusted to use them sanely, as all other nuclear powers have for the past 60 years. We cannot trust them not to try and exterminate Israel at the cost of their entire country.
Therefore, since we as a nation are sinful, we should commit another ‘pre-emptive war’ against a nation that has not, as a nation, harmed us directly in close to 30 years, because they could possibly bring the consequences of our sin upon us by attacking us?
It has not harmed us directly yet. It holds a high probability of doing so in the near-future. Preventing that is the purpose of a preemptive strike.
So, your saying that we should welcome a nuke attack on New York as Divine Discipline?
No. I’m saying that we need to stop thinking with our CRUDITY DELETED and start thinking with our brains. (Those of us that have CRUDITY DELETED, which I don’t since I’m a woman.) We can’t kill everyone in the world that hates the US or hates Israel. It’s impossible, because each death we cause in that region creates more hatred. You can’t bomb people into loving you. You can’t silence a martyr–and that seems to be doubly or triply true in the Muslim world.
Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth since its founding was being discussed in the 40s-50s. Why is it that this time we’ve suddenly decided that they’re more serious about it than they’ve been in the past, so therefore we need to go to war with them sometime soon?
CAREFUL ABOUT THOSE CRUDITIES, CJMR. THX.
It has not harmed us directly yet. It holds a high probability of doing so in the near-future. Preventing that is the purpose of a preemptive strike.
My neighbor has never harmed me directly. But we are having a quiet property line dispute. And I noticed him showing off his new rifle to one of his buddies last weekend, while pointing towards my house and talking quite loudly about the property line problem. Does that mean I have the right to shoot him before he gets out his gun and shoots me?
(Please note, this is a purely hypothetical situation.)
“Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth since its founding was being discussed in the 40s-50s.”
Yes, but they have never had the ability to do so. Should we let them develop it and then wait and see if they are willing to use it? Good plan.
“You can’t bomb people into loving you.”
You mean, you can’t hug people with nuclear arms? That’s sweet.
Nobody is trying to kill people that hate us, otherwise the French would have to go. That is the ultimate straw man.
If you don’t see a nuclear-armed Iran as a problem, then we are clearly on different pages, here.
“So, who here would be willing to, let’s say, abort one baby in order to prevent a nuclear war?”
Nobody, I think.
Your point is?…
I want to expose what I believe are two fallacies. One, I do not believe Iraq was a “pre-emptive” strike. The fact is up until the day of the operation Sadam was shooting at British/American planes. Those planes were there as a result of a previous just war. That was enough of a casus belli to start the current war. He ran out of get out of jail free cards.
The second is that Iran has a stated policy where it will destroy Isreal, a US ally, at the earliest opportunity. It has therefore stated openly its willingness to go to war with the US at the earliest possible moment. It has made an effective declaration of war. Let me repeat, if you say you *will go to war once you have the means you have made a declaration of war*. The US has largely ignored this since it would require launching a land war no one wants.
As to the previous poster I agree with Paul Druce. In each of those cases it was not an act of aggression and in several (need I note the forgotten Korea) it was with the “permission” and “help” of the UN.
I must also point out that using nuclear weapons in a limited environment (bunker busters and tactically) does not constitute a misuse of nuclear weapons.
I’m also surprised no one has mentioned the prospect of Iran getting hit by the first ever neutron weaponry. I have to wonder if we’ve finally pulled that genie out of the bottle.
Missed this one.
My neighbor has never harmed me directly. But we are having a quiet property line dispute. And I noticed him showing off his new rifle to one of his buddies last weekend, while pointing towards my house and talking quite loudly about the property line problem. Does that mean I have the right to shoot him before he gets out his gun and shoots me?
(Please note, this is a purely hypothetical situation.)
If the neighbor made a threat on your life while holding a weapon and you believed you had to act immediately to preserve your life I believe every one of the fifty states allows you to take lethal action. So the short answer is “Yes”.
Applied to your situation:
1.) Iran has threatened
2.) Iran has attacked, indirectly, allys of the United States. That is, it has caused harm.
3.) It intends to develop larger weapons with the express purpose of destroying Isreal uterly.
4.) It has recently bragged about its ability to teach a modern navy a lesson with its new torpedo system (haven’t had a chance to read up on this yet at Jane’s…anyone here with real non-mass-media info?).
“The second is that Iran has a stated policy where it will destroy Isreal, a US ally, at the earliest opportunity.”
So we can’t trust the Iranians when they disavow their nuke program, but we can trust their threats?
The Chinese and the Taiwanese have an annual ritual where China threatens military action if the Taiwanese declare independence, the Tawainese then pass an anti-Communist resolution, and nothing happens.
Why should we take Iran’s threats against Israel as anything more than bluster?
Scenario: A man accosts you on a street corner with a large handgun, warning, “Do what I tell you or I’ll blow your head off!” Then he adds, “Don’t worry, it isn’t really loaded.”
Clearly, you have nothing to worry about. If the man can be trusted, the gun isn’t loaded. And if he can’t, then why should you take his threat seriously?
As stated, something does happen. The Taiwanese don’t declare independence. The Chinese don’t act because the Taiwanese don’t do what the Chinese warn them not to do.
Israel, on the other hand, exists and continues to exist, and since it is that, rather than something that Israel might do but hasn’t yet, that the Iranians object to, it seems more reasonable to take the threat as an imminent one.
And let’s not forget to factor the apparent relative sanity of the leadership of the two states. The two cases seem to be not at all parallel.
Nick,
You are incorrect. In each of the 50 states you could be convicted of murder. A threat must be proximate. In other words, the neighbor has to be pointing the gun at you for you to be free to lethal self-defense. One isn’t entitled to mercenary action.
We should also note that the one time (that I remember) that the Chinese got really feisty a US carrier group was moved into the straight. China has also proved itself, over roughly four millennia, to be fairly stable minus the loss of the Mandate of Heaven every now and then. They’ve also been and off-and-on US ally and not threatened idly.
M Z, you seem to have wanted a word other than “mercenary” (“preemptive”)?
Doesn’t this count as “fighting words”? Last time I had a lawyer explain it to me the gun did not have to be pointed at me. In many cases that wouldn’t even make sense (a man chasing me with a rifle would have it pointed down). I understood that you simply had to feel threatened to the point of death. I’ll go checking and find out.
And as SDG points out you misuse mercenary which makes the legal advice suspect…
“Why should we take Iran’s threats against Israel as anything more than bluster?”
Because, unlike Kruschev or Kim Jong Il, the Islamo-fascists operate from an ideology that seems to prefer death to life. I think many of their leaders are full of hot air, and cynically use this ideology to manipulate people into doing something they would never do themselves (blow yourself up for Allah!), but if only a few such leaders actually start to believe their own propaganda, you have a highly unpredictable situation.
Historically, we have always been able to count on the fact that most of our enemies would rather continue to exist than not. We have no such assurance in this case.
Since this is beginning to take on the characteristics of a debate about the morality of preemptive warfare, I will say this;
A truly preemptive strike (as opposed to a pretense at one) could be placed in the category of legitimate defense without stretching the definition. If it is done in order to protect ourselves or our allies, it is defensive in nature.
If I have a sworn enemy at my border, and I see by satellite photos that they are moving massive amounts of troops, artillery, tanks and logistical supplies into strategic positions on their side of the fence, could I not be justified in launching a preemptive strike at some point? Am I morally bound to wait until they have all their chess pieces arranged just so, and have begun the invasion?
A first strike could be justified in those circumstances because those actions, taken by my enemy, can be understood as an act of war IN THEMSELVES. I needn’t wait until a shell flies over my morning egg to take justifiable action.
So we can’t trust the Iranians when they disavow their nuke program, but we can trust their threats?
Except that they haven’t disavowed their nuke program. The US, Europe, and Russia have given Iran several opportunities where it would have ensured that the Iranians had a nuclear program that was entirely peaceful. They have refused every single offer.
4.) It has recently bragged about its ability to teach a modern navy a lesson with its new torpedo system (haven’t had a chance to read up on this yet at Jane’s…anyone here with real non-mass-media info?).
It claims to have a supercavitating torpedo like the Russian Shvkal (in all liklihood it probably is a Russian Shvkal), but that’s really useless. Too shortranged and you can’t guide it.
Nick,
As far as the law on the issue, lethal force generally falls under the criteria of last resort. A man chasing you with a rifle would certainly qualify. A more interesting example I remember from a basic law case was where a man was sued by a robber for the injuries his guard dog caused. The robber won the case. One does have a common law right to arrest a felon, and if during the arrest lethal force was necessary, common law would allow it. Most states have signficantly curtailed this common law right.
To keep it simple and to fit the context you were getting at, conspiracy is not enough to justify lethal force. Pointing at a man’s home while discussing his soon to be demise would probably qualify for conspiracy charges in this country, but it does not present a proximate threat.
“Scenario: A man accosts you on a street corner with a large handgun, warning, “Do what I tell you or I’ll blow your head off!” Then he adds, “Don’t worry, it isn’t really loaded.”
My reaction depends on what neighborhood I’m in. In the neighborhood of world politics, bluster and empty threats are the norm.
Heck, our own government, not to mention the media, loves to panick us about cigarettes, global warming, asteroids, and now terrorism, all to get some sort governmental action. This in itself is a form of low-level terrorism, and I’m through putting up with it.
“Imagine a Nuke in DC!” is a phrase designed to short-circuit argument. Such an ultimate threat justifies taking any means necessary to prevent it. Hence torture and “preventive war” are now objects of debate rather than taboo.
The only reason we’re faced with such contorted arguments cramming war with Iran into Just War ethics is because there is no obvious casus belli, and so we need fearmongering to create the perception that there is a grave and certain threat.
Besides the papers and sites in the U.S.A., I do search for the news from other international sites in order to be able to better analyze the news.
All this mess is about Israel. I found out that what Ahmadinejad had said about Israel was the exact words of Ayatollah Khomeini, and he was just quoting him. Besides, according to the Iranian constitution, it’s the supreme leader and not the president who has the last say on basic state policies. It is interesting to know that Iran’s supreme leader officially has declared (in past ten years) that Iran does not believe in eradicating the state of Israel or any use of force against it. He rather says that the Palestinian refugees should be allowed to go back to their homes in Israel and a national referendum to be held under the world supervision for the future of Israel. He added that every Jew, Christian, and Muslim should have his vote accounted for.
This indeed would solve all this mess in a very democratic way. Don’t you think that it’s prudent to follow this democratic course of action? What ever the outcome, the world will support it and the sixty year old (and never ending) conflict will cease without the need to nuke anyone.
We allowed the refugees to come back to Iraq and then conducted a fair election there. We can do it in Israel too.
Saad Massah,
If the world took a vote on whether Iran should continue to be allowed to exist and the majority said “no” would that justify destroying Iran for ever?
Does subsidiarity mean anything anymore? Why on God’s green earth should we care about the internal turmoil of Israel, Iran, or anyone else outside North America? Maybe I missed the part where God annoited the US to be His judge in the world.
(a) One thing that makes me nervous about the Iranians is that they seem to have been playing footsie with the Russians a lot lately. Russia has helped a lot in stalling any UN action on their nuclear program, and that torpedo they unveiled looks like Russian tech. A rogue Iran is a deadly threat to Israel, and anyone who wants to protect their moral purity by letting several million Jews get vaporized without preventing it doesn’t get to claim the moral high ground IMHO. An Iran that is a Russian ally is a bigger threat to us, however, as they have greater capacity to do harm than could be produced indigenously.
(b) Paul – I believe the later model Shkvals had a homing functionality. Once they had run out to the approximate range of the target, they slowed down, quit supercavitating, and locked on. A little off the main topic, but somebody here can probably tell us if that’s false.
I’m not sure my comment on war being the fruit of sin was understood so I shall try to clarify it.
I have heard the concept admittedly not from the Magisterium but from orthodox Catholics like Fr. Corapi, Bl. Theresa of Calcutta, and the very early Thomas Merton.
The concept is separate from the “on the ground” situation, which needs to be analyzed according to the Just War Doctrine and which may make engaging in warfare morally acceptable or even necessary.
Think of Ancient Israel. If at a certain time in history it is at war with Assyria, that is because of the idolatry and other immoralities of the people. On the other hand Israel may be very much justified in defending itself militarily against the Assyrians.
The same situation applies to Iran. If (and it is a big if) it becomes morally necessary to go to war with them, a war in which there would almost certainly be a draft and much death on both sides, or all the more if there is a nuclear attack on the US, it will be as a result of the immorality of the American people, and in a way of the whole world. The same goes for natural disasters, and every other calamity. That does not mean the political and military leaders who decide to go to war are making a bad decision.
That also doesn’t mean that those killed for instance in hurrican Katrina or 9/11 or Iraq were any more sinful than those who were not killed. Nor must there be a linear relationship between sin level and suffering. Look at the situation through spiritual eyes, not modern scientific eyes.
When World War II started, Thomas Merton felt personally responsible for it because of his sinful life. His brother came to see it that way too, and converted to Catholicism shortly before dying a tragic and rather nasty but heroic death in the War. That is the context in which I view war.
Excuse me for not thinking the Supreme Leader is entirely coherent in his endorsement of democracy.
PVO
M. Z. Forest refers to the principle that problems should be handled at the lowest possible level. This is an important Catholic principle. However, it does not demand isolationism. I agree we should not get ourselves involved in every international trouble like we are the world police. At the same time we must defend our own borders, and also out of charity as well as self-interest help our allies, especially if they rely on us for their very survival, like Israel probably does.
“An Iran that is a Russian ally is a bigger threat to us, however, as they have greater capacity to do harm than could be produced indigenously.”
Could you expand on this? From what little I’ve read about the Russo-Iranian alliances, Russia would keep Iran on a short leash. I guess one worry is they’d supply Iran with arms which some future dictator could put to use after breaking from Russia.
There is also a HUGE something that no one has mentioned is geographic.
Look at a map of Central Asia… including our planes at Diego Garcia, IRAN has been quietly SURROUNDED by U.S. troops thanks to the War on “terror” (Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, & Pakistan)in the past few years.
Wouldn’t you be a bit paranoid and feel that US was threatening them?
sure… they should be scared and after spreading terrorism globably for decades AND the embassy hostages in Tehran in 1978-80.
But, once again, USAmerican logic rushes to the forefront… USA is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons to stop IRAN from obtaining nuclearn weapons.
Maran atha!!!
Victor Davis Hanson is on the mark. I hope his message reaches Mr. Ahmadinejad, but I doubt it. If the United States (with her allies) does go to war with Iran, and it seems more and more unavoidable every day, I hope they blitz that country with a military attack the likes of which the world has never seen. The US needs to send a CLEAR message to the Islamofascist world with Ahmadinejad and his cronies. A good old-fashioned ugly, dirty, brutal, inhumane horror show.
yes, Dirk, that is one way to do it.
or, we could actually punish the ones that DID attack the USA… you know, Saudia Arabia.
remember? all of those blacked out names in the 9/11 Report… how many of the 09/11 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia.. 23?
let’s blitz Saudia Arabia like the world has never seen.
or as addicted to oil and oil profits Americans… is the law of the jungle pre-eminent: from the white house to the ghetto… nobody disses their “Pusher”.
ok. so we must punish someone else.. Iraq and now Iran will do.
Does anyone here seriously believe that Catholic moral teaching allows the evil act of a nuclear attack on a foreign nation for the ostensible purpose of preventing that nation from developing weapons which may someday be used offensively?
By that same reasoning, every country in the entire world would be justified to attack the United States as quickly and as devastatingly as possible.
Does anyone here seriously believe that Catholic moral teaching allows the evil act of a nuclear attack on a foreign nation for the ostensible purpose of preventing that nation from developing weapons which may someday be used offensively?
Nuclear weapons are not intrinsically evil weapons. And yes, Catholic moral teaching does allow pre-emptive strikes.
yes, Dirk, that is one way to do it.
or, we could actually punish the ones that DID attack the USA… you know, Saudia Arabia.
remember? all of those blacked out names in the 9/11 Report… how many of the 09/11 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia.. 23?
let’s blitz Saudia Arabia like the world has never seen.
Remember how Al Qaeda wasn’t based in Saudi Arabia and how Saudi Arabia has been cooperating quite well with the US on the WoT?
You don’t know anything about Catholicism do you? The catechism on Just War:
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Something about lasting, grave, and CERTAIN. Something about exhausting all other means. Something about not producing evils greater than the one to be eliminated.
And yes, despite your conviction otherwise, starting a nuclear war is intrinsically evil. You can argue that one with God.
You don’t know anything about Catholicism do you?
I happen to have studied (and engaged in) apologetics for several years and am currently a theology and catechetics double major at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. I would venture to guess that not only do I know quite a good deal about Catholicism, I know more than you do.
Something about lasting, grave, and CERTAIN.
Yes. Certain damage, as opposed to damage that may or may not exist. This lasting, grave, and certain damage is not just “Oh wow, they’ve got tanks in our cities shooting at our people”, but also the credible threat of causing such damage. Witness the Six Day War. Egypt and Syria were building up forces on the Israeli border and had become increasingly provocative. Rather than wait for the first blow, Israel struck first, and destroyed the enemy armies. A perfectly moral action.
Something about exhausting all other means.
Very well, what other means would you suggest with Iran? We’ve had an embargo on them for decades now if I remember correctly, fat lot of good it’s done. Diplomacy isn’t working as evidenced by their repeated refusal to accept US, European, or Russian aid in developing a nuclear power system that cannot be used for nuclear weapons. Containment may be effective. The government may have the ability to ensure that the Iranians cannot utilize a nuclear weapon (such is certainly true with North Korea, their bombs would only be effective as mines due to their inability to deliver them). If they do not however, then they have a moral right to engage in war against Iran. Remember, war is indeed a punishment for sin. It is also a right of states so that they may punish sin and protect their rights and the rights of their populace.
Something about not producing evils greater than the one to be eliminated.
Quite. The evil that a pre-emptive nuclear war with Iran would produce is a few thousand or tens of thousands of dead Iranian troops, negligible civilian casualties unless the Iranians put part of the program inside of a city in the hopes of deterring an attack (in which case the guilt for all of those resulting deaths is on the heads of the Iranian government), and some fallout.
The evil that such a war would prevent is the destruction of at least one Israeli city with nuclear weapons, the resulting annihilation of the nation of Iran by the US and Israel due to both nations having a policy of massive retaliation, and quite a good deal more fallout.
And yes, despite your conviction otherwise, starting a nuclear war is intrinsically evil.
No it is not. There are two differences between a nuclear war and a conventional war:
1. The bomb makes a much larger boom when it hits the ground.
2. You want to avoid where the bomb just went off for a couple hours, and prolonged exposure for a few days.
Nuclear warfare is not in and of itself evil, it is the traditional use of nuclear weapons and targetting of nuclear weapons in such a manner that entire cities and millions of people would die out of proportion to the legitimate good performed that has caused the common notion that it is intrinsically evil. But this is like condemning incendiary weapons like thermite and napalm for Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo, ignoring that they do have a legitimate and moral use in war.
“I would venture to guess that not only do I know quite a good deal about Catholicism, I know more than you do.”
You may know more about the Catholicism of Michael Novak, the Catholicism that obsequiously serves the interest of the state. You do not know the Catholicism of Rome. As Cardinal Ratzinger said before he was elevated to Pope, “A preventive war is not in the Catechism.” Of course, you know better.
You seem to be suffering from the misapprehension that nuclear weapons are simply big bombs, with little lasting effect. This completely ignores the fact that usage of nuclear weapons against a country in the middle east will not be seen as a relatively harmless use of conventional weaponry. This will likely open the door to widespread use of nuclear weaponry, and not just against the enemies you disregard so callously. The moral and practical prohibitions against using nuclear weapons will be smashed and madmen will use them without compunction, even against Americans. Do not think you can prevent evil by killing. If that is what you have learned at a Franciscan university the order has fallen far from its founder. You will achieve the nightmare you hope to prevent.
You may know more about the Catholicism of Michael Novak, the Catholicism that obsequiously serves the interest of the state. You do not know the Catholicism of Rome. As Cardinal Ratzinger said before he was elevated to Pope, “A preventive war is not in the Catechism.” Of course, you know better.
A preventative war may not be in the current Catechesim. The Catechism is hardly the be all and end all of Catholic theology however.
You seem to be suffering from the misapprehension that nuclear weapons are simply big bombs, with little lasting effect. This completely ignores the fact that usage of nuclear weapons against a country in the middle east will not be seen as a relatively harmless use of conventional weaponry. This will likely open the door to widespread use of nuclear weaponry, and not just against the enemies you disregard so callously.
Very well, by whom? Who will end up using nuclear weapons in that widescale manner?
The moral and practical prohibitions against using nuclear weapons will be smashed and madmen will use them without compunction, even against Americans.
What moral and practical prohibitions will be smashed? Moral prohibitions, unless they come from civil law, are eternal and hence can’t be smashed, and the practical prohibitions against using them will remain the same as they were before a nuclear strike against Iran. What madmen will get them? For that matter, how will they get them given that the entire purpose of a nuclear strike on Iran is to prevent madmen from getting nuclear weapons in the first place? You shoot your own argument in the foot, as the possibility of madmen getting these weapons incurs a moral responsibility to destroy them and their ability to do so before they do so.
Do not think you can prevent evil by killing
So legitimate exercises of lethal force in self-defense, war, and capital punishment are suddenly no more?
“Do not think you can prevent evil by killing”
Don’t forget the difference between the acts of a private individual and those of a legitimate state. We are used to thinking about the former when considering whether an act is moral, but the latter has more rights as regards putting people to death.
“Remember, war is indeed a punishment for sin. It is also a right of states so that they may punish sin and protect their rights and the rights of their populace.”
Is there anything in Catholic teaching that would suggest a state may wage war in part to punish the sins of another country? This would shock me. In any case it is not at all what my comments were meant to suggest. The punishment of nations is in the hands of God. The individual or the state should simply discern what the most moral thing is for them to do. Don’t worry about punishing others.
I think we should not even worry about the sins of the Iranian people. Let’s focus on ourselves, the fallen West. If every American and European would fall on his or her knees this Holy Week and make an act of contrition and do penance for the sins of the past, I bet we would see this threat disappear quickly.
Well said, J.R.
Two humble points to make on this topic: One, I think if the West stopped interfering in middle eastern politics, Iran would neither make threats against it nor carry these threats out.
Two: Not far from Iran is a country called Israel, which is decidedly hostile to Iran and has had nuclear weapons since the 1970’s.
If I were Iranian, I’d want my country to have them too.
Reverse roll. What happen if Iran is US and US is Iran? I bet you we were all wiped out long ago. So why not take these radical islam out first.
Yes, what would the world be like if Iran had possessed thousands of nuclear warheads for the last 50 years?
It’s worth a few minutes thought.
I totally agree with what you have written about what the us military will do to iran . Do the arabs know its high time they saw some sence and
got back to milking the camels.
Jimmy, I am glad you seem to appreciate the dangers that Iran poses to the United States and our national security. Moreover, I am inclined to agree with you that war with Iran seems more likely than not. I also tend to agree with your other posts on the need for more manpower on our Mexican border.
That being the case, I have to wonder what you are still doing sitting behind your computer? Why haven’t you enlisted in the Army? They just raised the maximum enlistment age to 42, incidentally.
With a war in Iraq, our troops fighting in Afghanistan, North Korea rattling its nuclear saber, and our President putting National Guard troops on our Mexican border, surely you would want to actually do something substantial in support of your convictions and in defense of our national interests, right?
Oh, wait. Joining the military would cost you something, wouldn’t it? Joining the military would actually mean putting yourself at risk and giving up the comforts that you currently enjoy. You, much like your boss, Karl Keating (another chicken hawk who has never done so much as a single push-up in defense of America), could never have that happen. We’ll leave actually defending America’s national security interests to “other people.” Far better that you just sit back and play armchair general.
Silly me. What was I thinking?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060621/pl_afp/usmilitaryrecruiting_060621195033
Ha! It always amuses me to see charges of cowardice levelled in the combox, and then see that the brave poster didnt’ even have the huevos to sign their post.
So they’re taking 42-year-olds now? Well, that excludes me, and perhaps Jimmy, too.
Anyway, to borrow from Uncle Billy, (of It’s a Wonderful Life);
“After all, brave anonymous poster, some people like Jimmy HAD to stay at home. Not every heel is in Iran and Iraq.”.
Jimmy’s fighting the war against ignorance here on the home front.
He’s got a good way to go, though, from the look of it.
He’s just a cowardly troll, Tim. Not worth feeding.
“Jimmy’s fighting the war against ignorance here on the home front.”
And Jimmy, along with Karl Keating, is living pretty well on those contributions that people send in to Catholic Answers. Nice gig, if you can get it.