Jus Ad Bellum | Iran & the Just War
By: Alexander Kreitz
With the advent of a new stage of combat in the Middle East, understanding justice in war has never been so crucial. Analyzing actions taken by the United States, Iran, and Israel allows a picture, be it debated, of the state of the war.
War is a construct that predates history, a manner older than the written word. Ever since men have wielded spear and bow for hunt and game, so too have they taken arms against their foes, beast and man. It has been romanticized and feared, ushered in and forced, and seen by some as a game of skill against skill. With this, scholars have long debated not just the nature of war, but what brings it about, and by what right man has to command it.
Just War Theory is an idea put forth by men such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, which quantifies in its tenets how war should begin, be carried out, and ended. These titles, respectively, are jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum - justice in resorting to war, justice in conducting war, and justice after war.
To each of these stages belong criteria that, when taken holistically, determine if a nation has acted in justice, or without justice, in their deliverance of war. Seeing as how the American-Iranian war is scarcely a month old, it is best to analyze jus ad bellum - the actions by which war was brought about. Let these be the facts available, presented for each tenet, where a rational man may determine for himself if the United States has acted righteously in war.
Just Cause is the tenet that wars must be initiated with reasonable intentions, such as self-defense, protection of allies, or a response to aggression. In the instance of the American-Iranian war, combat began with preemptive airstrikes from allied American-Israeli forces, making precision attacks against combat infrastructure and ranking politicians. These preemptive strikes were made, as stated by President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, in fear that Iran would utilize their nuclear program to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Opponents claim that the Iranian regime had no intention of developing nuclear weapons, while supporters point to the high-enrichment sites Iran had developed. These sites were destroyed by American-Israeli targeted attacks during the 12-Day War. Such sites include Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. However, the Iranian regime declared their intentions of rebuilding these sites, which could produce uranium of an enrichment level only utilized in nuclear weapons.
Legitimate Authority is the tenet whereby war must be declared by those with the power to do so, as structured. As declared by Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, only Congress has the explicit power to “Declare War”. Article II, Section 2 also designates the President as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”
The Constitution clearly states that Congress shall be the decider of when to go to war, and that without a resolution of that elected body, actions in war may not be allowed. However, in the modern era, there has been a precedent that presidents may act outside of Congress in pursuit of combat operations. This is why the current actions in Iran have been designated “Combat Operations” and not certain war. Other combat operations include American intervention in Kosovo (Clinton), Libya (Obama), and Yemen (Biden).
Such is why the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was established as a means to check the president’s power. Congress put forth a War Powers Resolution, yet it failed to pass the House of Representatives.
Right Intention is the idea that war must be waged in pursuit of a righteous cause. Supporters of American intervention claim that the goal of the operations in Iran is to prevent the Iranian regime from producing and using nuclear weapons, maintaining the safety of the world. Those in opposition claim this war is yet another attempt to capture Middle Eastern oil.
Reasonable Chance of Success is the tenet where war must only be conducted if the combatant nation can reasonably achieve the goals set forth. Hegseth claims the goals of the United States are to “Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure.”
These goals have mostly been achieved by the American coordinated airstrikes. However, as demonstrated in the past, the Iranian regime has no issue rebuilding, even after catastrophic loss. Those in opposition of the war declare there is no possible way - barring permanent occupation - the Iranian regime will fully lose their offensive capabilities.
The final relevant tenet of Just War Theory is Last Resort. A nation may only enter war if all other options - such as diplomacy - have been exhausted. Supporters of American intervention claim that the United States has been in constant negotiation with the Iranian regime for over a decade, and little actual progress has been made against their declaration to achieve nuclear weapons. The JCPOA established guardrails for Iran, but failed to account for the fact that Iran would refuse to comply, and would ultimately end with the Iranian regime acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Such is why the JCPOA was dissolved, and subsequent talks have proved equally fruitless.
However, those in opposition claim that Iran was in direct negotiations with the United States during February 28th, the day that began the “Combat Operations.” This would reject the idea that war was the last resort of the United States.
With these relevant ideals of Just War Theory paired with current facts, it is still difficult to determine if the United States has acted in absolute accordance with the theory. It can, however, be ascertained that they have acted righteously, minimizing civilian damage whilst pursuing an aggressive end to hostilities, with a goal of safekeeping the world at large. Yet, it is still debatable whether or not war was the only resort, and if its goals, as presented, are achievable.