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.

Flippity-Floppity

Past - We can do it!

Present - No, we can't!

================================
Hillary flip-flops, contradicts Bill - & herself - in N.H. debate

BY IAN BISHOP and MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Thursday, September 27th 2007, 1:58 AM

HANOVER, N.H. - Sen. Hillary Clinton scored with a Democratic audience last night by contradicting her husband's belief that a terrorist could be tortured to foil an imminent plot - but what observers didn't know is she was contradicting herself, too.

"It cannot be American policy, period," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told debate moderator Tim Russert, who asked if there should be a presidential exemption to allow the torture of a terror chieftain if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn't know where it was.

When Russert revealed ex-President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent NBC "Meet the Press" appearance, Hillary Clinton won huge applause from the Dartmouth College audience with a deadpan comeback:

"Well, I'll talk to him later."

She may have to give herself that talk, too.

Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: "If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law."

She said then the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.
================================

So, Hill, which is it? Torture, Yea or Nay?

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?

Isn't It So Much Better...

... now that Israel is out of Gaza?

Children playing in the parks, women shopping in the markets, dressed in gaily colored clothes, men contentedly drinking coffee while calmly discussing local and world affairs;

===============================
Hamas Overruns Fatah Security Command

Jun 14 07:11 AM US/Eastern
By DIAA HADID
Associated Press Writer

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Hamas fighters overran one of the rival Fatah movement's most important security installations in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, and witnesses said the victors dragged vanquished gunmen from the building and killed them in the street.
===============================

See?

So peaceful and tranquil.

Why, Israel is nothing but a villainous monster to have prevented this harmony in the past. It is good that they left Gaza and, the sooner they leave the Middle East entirely,the better. Then, all of Palestine - maybe all of the region - can be as pleasant and affable as the Gaza example shows...