On Iran, Iraq, and the Moral Clarity of Just War

Well, it's been a while—eight years since my last post—but the urge struck me again in the midst of learning how to create models in Blender for my new Anycubic Kobra S1 3D printer. Time has flown by—hours and days passing while working in Blender without my noticing them at all.

Anyway, here are my thoughts on the current threat of Iran, in the context of how we responded to Iraq during their invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

---

In today’s geopolitical landscape, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran—a nation that has made direct threats against Israel and, at times, the United States—forces us to confront hard questions about preemptive action, national defense, and moral restraint.

Often, critics of military force invoke Christian teachings—particularly the words of Jesus—as if they require absolute pacifism. But that’s an incomplete reading. When Christ drove the money changers from the Temple, it was not a violent riot, but a targeted act of moral confrontation. He condemned corruption hidden under religious pretense, and he did so forcefully. This wasn’t about losing control—it was about demonstrating righteous anger in the face of institutional exploitation.

This example provides a useful framework for understanding Just War Theory, developed by theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, and central to Christian moral philosophy. Just War doctrine doesn’t forbid force—it regulates it. War must be:

• Waged for a just cause (not conquest),

• Declared by a legitimate authority,

• A last resort, after diplomatic efforts fail,

• Proportional in its force,

• And conducted with a realistic chance of success.

Now consider Iraq. In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait—unprovoked and brutal. It was a clear violation of international law and Christian morality. The U.S.-led coalition that expelled Iraq in 1991 did so with moral legitimacy: it was defensive, restrained, and backed by international consensus. The goal was not conquest, but liberation.

The ceasefire Iraq agreed to afterward, under UN Security Council Resolution 687, required proactive disarmament and unrestricted access for inspectors. Iraq failed on both counts. It obstructed, delayed, and deceived. It did not meet the burden of proof—it evaded it.

This failure sustained the just cause for continued pressure. While the 2003 invasion of Iraq is more controversial—especially given the flawed intelligence regarding WMDs—the moral groundwork had already been laid by Saddam’s consistent noncompliance, aggression, and brutal internal repression.

Critics of the Bush administration often claimed the war was about oil or revenge, but these accusations have little grounding in fact:

• Iraq retained control of its oil fields.

• U.S. oil companies did not walk away with spoils.

• The cost of the war far outweighed any conceivable resource gain.

Had a different administration been in power, many of these same critics may have viewed the situation differently. Political alignment often colors moral outrage.

Now, to Iran. Its regime sponsors terrorism, suppresses dissent, and has made explicit threats of annihilation. If it were to acquire and ready nuclear weapons, Just War principles could apply—if the threat is credible, imminent, and unavoidable by peaceful means. Christian moral tradition doesn’t require nations to sit idle while their cities face potential destruction. But it also doesn’t permit wars of conjecture or convenience.

Regime change, contrary to some interpretations, is permissible under Just War Theory, if the regime in question is itself a threat to peace and human dignity—just as Nazi Germany was. The morality of the act lies not only in the removal, but in the responsibility taken afterward to secure peace and stability.

The lesson from Iraq is not that action was unjustified—but that action must be matched by foresight. Intelligence must be solid. Planning must be thorough. And motives must remain rooted in justice, not pride or profit.

Ultimately, Christian doctrine compels us to ask:

• Is the danger real?

• Have we exhausted other options?

• Is our response aimed at peace?

If so, then action—even preemptive action—can be morally just. The challenge lies not in knowing whether evil should be resisted. The challenge lies in resisting it wisely.

It's Either True Or It's Not

Today, two bombs exploded in Oslo, Norway doing considerable damage to a Norwegian government building where their prime minister is officed.

There is a link to an Iraqi cleric who threatened the lives of Norwegian politicians, Mullah Krekar, the founder of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam.

This mullah said that, if deported from Norway, he'd be killed, therefore the politicians who deported him deserve the same fate. Norway considered deporting him because they saw him as a national security threat.

In the ABC News article, the writer chose to make an interesting connection. He wrote;

Prior to the Iraq War, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said Ansar al-Islam was the "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network."

Now then, we've been blasted by the left who assert that Powell was either lying or duped when making this statement. If that is the case, why is it used NOW as supporting evidence of the danger of mullah Krekar?

Either Ansar al-Islam was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, or it wasn't. It can't be both. It can't be a connection now, if it wasn't then. If it is a connection now, then it was back when Powell made the statement, too.

So, given the history since Powell said this, if ABC is still reporting it, then I would say there WAS a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, making Iraq a valid target for invasion in the pursuit of al Qaeda.

Absolutely No Yellowcake In Iraq.

Hey, wait a minute - what's that 550 tons of yellowcake?

AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq

Jul 6, 4:45 AM (ET)
By BRIAN MURPHY

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile
of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a
secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship
voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for
higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the
books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi
authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers
crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

Gee, I wonder if this could have been for WMDs?

Nah.

Probably used it for potting soil...

Elitist Attitude Doesn't Help

Marty O'Malley is frustrated that no one seems to share his outrage at our presence in Iraq.

Well, maybe, if he didn't give idiot advice like this;

As he and two other protesters waited, Maddie Smith, a student at the Art
Institute of Pittsburgh, approached Mr. O'Malley and asked for a sign for her
lawn in Brookline.
He gladly gave her one. He also gave her instructions:
"Put it so it's facing traffic. Otherwise no one will see it."

he might find people more willing to listen to him.

Does he really think it is necessary to give such obvious advice to an adult?

Or, is it that those who do support him are such dolts that they need this sort of advice?

Or, might it be that those who support him are so enamored of themselves, so full of their own importance, that they purposely face their signs towards their own homes, such that they may admire their handiwork in comfort while sipping a latte?

If he gives all of his advice in such a condescending manner, it's no wonder no one showed up.

A Democrat Idea I Partly Agree With

Democrats may to require Iraq to use its oil revenue to pay for its own reconstruction.

This is something I wholeheartedly agree with. One of the points Bush made towards finishing up the Gulf War was that Iraq would not have to pay for our effort.

I could see not having them pay upfront, but I always thought that they should refill our coffers, once the war was won.

Now, I am unsure how US legislation has any hold over another sovereign nation. Since when is Iraq under US law? If Iraq were a possession of the US, or a colony - not a bad idea, by the way - then our legislation has teeth. But, as long as Iraq is sovereign, we can't tell them what to do.
We can persuade them, but not dictate to them.

So, how the dems figure to make this work is something I'd like to hear. Sure, we can cut out funding, but that won't force them to make up for the lack. It is still a matter of Iraqi choice.

That was the part I agreed with. Now for what I don't agree with.

The second part of the bill would be to have the Iraqis tke the lead in military operations.

Yeah, that's a great idea. Put the unskilled in charge - there's a sure path to success.

If you go in for major surgery, do you want the skilled surgeon with steady hands to work on you, or the med-school freshman?

This democrat plan is insisting on the freshman.

Leave it to dems to botch up even a good idea...

The Backpedaling Begins

Looks like Bush won't be the only president - actual or potential - keeping the troops in Iraq;

==============================
Dems Can't Make Guarantee on Iraq Troops

Sep 27, 6:26 AM (ET)
By BETH FOUHY

HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
==============================

I wonder how MoveOn will bastardize their names?

Chamberlain's Not Dead

He changed his name to James Baker and put the ol' appeasement jacket back on to see if it fit current fashions.

I'm willing to bet that Hitler reacted favorably to Chamberlain's Plan, too...

When your enemies favor a decision, it's the wrong decision.

Of All The Nerve

Europe didn't have the balls to help take Hussein down, but they do have the gall to stick their nose in to say what should happen to him. (as of 8 Mar 07, the page has been moved)

Hussein was TRIED by FREE Iraqis.
Hussein was held to the LAW by FREE Iraqis.
Hussein was found GUILTY by FREE Iraqis.
Hussein was sentenced to DEATH by FREE Iraqis.

But, the decision of FREE Iraqis does not quite meet with the EU's approval, so they dare to tell a FREE Iraq what to do.

The EU would take no part in making Iraq FREE, yet the EU has no problem in dictating to them how to apply their laws.

The EU is unable to control their own backyard, what makes them think they can tell others how to mow their lawns?

I'm referring to Milosevic.

Europe couldn't stop him, so they crawled to the US, begging for our aid in doing their job for them. Since 1914, Europe has been unable to see to its own affairs.

I'm of the opinion that the next time a spark falls on the EU house, let it burn to the ground.