Just War Theory: Duane W.H. Arnold, PhD
Just War Theory
We find ourselves watching, almost in real time, the widening arc of conflict across the Middle East, as the United States, Israel, Iran, and neighboring states engage in an accelerating cycle of military action and retaliation. The most recent attack on Iran has brought the region to the threshold of a new and profoundly dangerous era, one in which precision weapons strike deep within sovereign territory and civilians live under the shadow of escalation they neither provoked nor control. We witness missile trails over cities, air-raid sirens echoing across regions already burdened by instability, and political rhetoric that gestures—recklessly—toward wider war. The very speed and impersonality of modern weaponry creates the illusion of control while obscuring the brutal reality that innocent men, women, and children will again pay the ultimate price. This is not simply warfare revisited; it is warfare transformed.
The first three hundred years of the Church maintained an almost universal pacifist consensus among believers. In the Constantinian and post-Constantinian era, however, the Church struggled with the role of the military in a nominally Christian state and the justification for the state-ordered violence that we know as war. Through the course of centuries, Christian thinkers wrestled with what, if anything, constituted a “just war.” Ultimately, they formulated two categories that sought to codify the intent of a state in going to war and the conduct of the warring parties.
The first category of intent is the jus ad bellum—the criteria governing what might be considered justified in the decision to wage war. Though various lists have been developed over the past millennium, most draw, in one way or another, on the reflections of Augustine, Aquinas, and the School of Salamanca. In 1993, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a pastoral letter that offered a consolidated list of these criteria. They remain, in my estimation, a clear distillation of the broader Christian tradition:
Jus ad Bellum
– Just Cause — force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, such as aggression or massive violation of basic rights.
– Comparative Justice — while rights and wrongs may be found on all sides, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh the injustice claimed by the other.
– Legitimate Authority — only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
– Right Intention — force may be used only for a truly just cause and for that purpose alone.
– Probability of Success — arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate means would be required to achieve success.
– Proportionality — the destruction expected must be proportionate to the good hoped for.
– Last Resort — all peaceful alternatives must have been seriously tried and exhausted.
The second category, jus in bello, defines the moral constraints in the conduct of war:
Jus in Bello
– Noncombatant Immunity — civilians must not be directly targeted, and all reasonable care must be taken to minimize harm.
– Proportionality — military objectives must be pursued with no more force than necessary, avoiding disproportionate collateral damage.
– Right Intention — even in conflict, the aim of leaders must be peace with justice; acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence remain forbidden.
I understand the theory. However, my question is whether a just war theory can be applied to modern warfare at all. When I examine the history of warfare in the contemporary era, my doubts deepen.
In the present conflict, each major actor claims justification—whether it is the stated defensive posture of the United States, the existential security claims of Israel, or the retaliatory logic asserted by Iran and various Middle Eastern states. Yet each operates within an ever-escalating calculus of force shaped by strategic imperative, nationalist rhetoric, and reciprocal deterrence. The latest attack on Iran—positioned as both retaliation and preemption—reveals how thin the line has become between defensive necessity and unrestrained escalation.
These conflicts are marked by geopolitical calculation, by the speed and reach of twenty-first-century weapons, and by the growing distance between those who order violence and those who endure it. When states exchange fire across borders; when civilian populations are placed at immediate and predictable risk; and when escalation appears easier than restraint, the classical framework of just war begins to strain under the weight of the moment.
Moreover, we must now ask: Is there any state actor who can meaningfully claim to meet the criteria of jus ad bellum or jus in bello? Or have we entered a geopolitical environment in which the moral tradition is invoked not as a constraint but as a post hoc justification?
Faced with such malignant and multi-layered evil, talk of just war theory begins to fade into insignificance. Yet abandoning the moral question altogether would be a far greater mistake.
Perhaps I am looking for answers that are not there. However, the absence of ready answers does not release the Church from its vocation. The Christian community does not possess the luxury of moral silence, even when nation-states act without moral clarity. Christians have always stood at this uneasy intersection of faith and history: proclaiming a Gospel of reconciliation in a world enthralled by the logic and appeal of force.
Moreover, the Church must insist that even in the age of drones, precision strikes, and instantaneous retaliation, the ancient moral questions still matter. The just war tradition—however strained—remains a witness against the normalization of violence. It does not sanctify war; it interrogates it. It exposes the pretensions of states that claim necessity while obscuring injustice. It reminds the people of God that no political calculation, no national strategy, and no security doctrine can ever absolve the shedding of innocent blood.
The task before us is not to declare any present conflict “just,” but to hold fast to the conviction that God is neither absent nor silent in a violent world. The Cross stands as the final rebuke to every empire that presumes victory through force, and as the final affirmation that peace is not merely preferable but commanded. Our calling, therefore, is to speak truthfully, pray earnestly, and work unremittingly for a peace rooted not in strategic equilibrium, but in the righteousness and mercy of God.
Duane W.H. Arnold, PhD
Thank you for this helpful piece on a confusing subject. I can’t reconcile Jesus’ teachings with the concept of “just war”. Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.
Duane,
Concerning the cause of the war: how are we supposed to know if the cause the the government claims for prosecuting the war is the real cause? Are we always supposed to trust the government’s claims unless we have overwhelming contrary evidence? I mean, in the context of just war theory.
These seem like guidelines written for those who govern to determine whether the war would be just; they don’t seem to be written with average non-governing citizens in mind.
Joel G
I tend to be more in sympathy with the position of the church in its first three centuries of life…
Robert F
That is precisely the difficulty in applying just war theory in the modern world. The tradition assumes that governments operate with a level of transparency and moral seriousness that is, frankly, rare. Moreover, the early theologians who shaped the just war framework—Augustine, Aquinas, later the Salamanca school—were working within worlds where the motivations of princes were at least somewhat knowable, even if not always noble.
In our context, states often cloak their intentions behind layers of intelligence assessments, national-security rhetoric, and geopolitical calculations that the public cannot verify. We are, therefore, placed in the uncomfortable position of having to make moral judgments with incomplete information. It is not that we are expected to trust the government blindly; rather, we are called to exercise discernment. That includes recognizing that governments have their own interests—political, strategic, and economic—that may or may not align with the criteria of a just cause.
Moreover, the burden of proof remains with the state. The presumption in just war theory is always against the use of force. It is the state that must demonstrate, clearly and credibly, that the cause is just, that alternatives have been exhausted, and that the proposed action meets the standards of proportionality and right intention. When a government cannot—or will not—give such an account, Christians have every right to be skeptical and every obligation to ask hard questions.
Duane,
But who is the state required to prove it to? If the state says,”they were building long range missiles and a preemptive strike was necessary to defend ourselves from sudden attack”, what standing does the average citizen have to contradict a claim that is likely to made based on confidential if not top secret information? It seems like an Aristotelian ethic, a guideline for privileged rulers to prove to others are privileged that they should make common cause, is the basis of the Just War guidelines, and I’m skeptical that they ever worked well to curb a prince or kingdom that were dead set on war.
Robert F
You’re naming the core problem. Just war theory assumes that a government can make its case openly, but modern states justify war with intelligence the public will never see. When a government says, “They were building long-range missiles; a pre-emptive strike was necessary,” the average citizen has no access to the evidence and no practical way to contradict it. That gap between state secrecy and public scrutiny is precisely where the classical framework begins to break down.
Moreover, you are right to note the Aristotelian residue in the tradition. Just war theory presumes rulers who are capable of virtue, transparency, and moral argument—an assumption that rarely matches political reality. Historically, princes have often wrapped ambition, fear, or revenge in moral language. Modern governments do the same, only with far more sophisticated tools.
So who must the state “prove” its case to?
In theory: God, the moral law, and the wider human community.
In practice: usually itself.
This is why the Church must remain skeptical. We cannot verify classified intelligence, but we can question the narrative, refuse to baptize the state’s claims, and insist that any appeal to “necessity” be held against the demands of justice, truth, and the sanctity of human life. It also requires the Church to be a consistent truth-teller…
Duane, In ancient times the general public would’ve been just as much in the dark, maybe even more so, because news traveled very slowly. Princes had access to information that never would get to the rural peasant majority. Whatever the masses were told by the princes would’ve been propaganda to motivate them to fight, by persuasion rather than force when possible. I think the myth of virtuous Christian princes was never grounded in reality, so neither was just war theory.
You’re right that ancient peasants were just as much in the dark—often more so. Information was slow, incomplete, and tightly controlled. Moreover, the image of the “virtuous Christian prince” was, in most cases, more aspirational than descriptive. Augustine certainly did not believe that rulers were paragons of virtue; his entire just war framework was an attempt to restrain fallen men who wielded immense power, not a celebration of their righteousness.
However, the difference in the modern world is scale and mechanism. In antiquity, the distance between ruler and ruled was vast, but the means of war were limited. Armies moved slowly. Mobilization took time. The consequences of war—though devastating—were visible, tangible, embodied.
Today, decisions are made at the speed of digital intelligence and executed through weapons that allow states to kill without ever seeing the people affected. That distance—moral, technological, and psychological—creates a far greater challenge for just war reasoning than ancient asymmetries ever did.
So I agree with you: the myth of consistently virtuous rulers was never grounded in reality. However, the just war tradition was not built on that myth. It was built as a moral check precisely because rulers could not be trusted. The tragedy is that as the state’s capacity for violence has grown, its willingness to submit itself to moral scrutiny has diminished.
This is exactly why the Church must continue to press the question—because if we abandon the moral framework entirely, the only remaining logic is power. Trump has figured that out…
Duane
Thanks for the comprehensive overview and dive into this subject. I tend to agree with Stanley Hauerwas that the popularized arguments around just war have been used in modern times to justify enormous acts of violence in the name of freedom and justice which themselves have become idolatrous.
Regarding proportionality: the idea of proportionality has been so twisted that Israel can invoke it as justification for blowing up apartment buildings full of hundreds of people because one “target” was thought by military intelligence to be in the building; and American presidents, including Obama and Trump, can justify drone attacks that kill 20 civilians and only one target because it reduces lives taken by other kinds of bombing airstrikes. Proportionality has been so twisted that it has become a meaningless measure of just prosecution of a war or other armed conflict. My view is that the greatest terrorism of the modern era has been conducted by the major powers, emphatically including the United States.
But,yes, whatever rhetorical power just war theory might possess to impede Trump and his people should be employed.
Personally, the constant lying, the in-your-face deception and intentional cruelty, that Trump has deployed from long before 2016, and still practices today, makes every narrative he or his people advance suspect to the point of incredibility, and that’s where this Christian citizen of this democratic republic stands with regard to the the justifications advanced for this war. I do not support this war or those waging or supporting it at any level; I do not wish our side well in regard to success in realizing its objectives, objectives of which we have not been honestly informed.
Iran’s supreme leader has been assassinated, but a successor is likely already in place. My understanding is that Iran has developed contingency plans that involve multiple levels of succession in all key leadership roles. They’ve been expecting this for a long time, and planned accordingly. Aside from the immorality of the military attack by U.S. and Israel, the probability of success has been badly calculated. Also several other of the requirements for just war aside from just cause are being violated. This is already an unjust war; that’s Trump and his movement’s kind of war.
The U.S. has made it very clear that the assassination of another state’s leader is legitimate policy. That legitimates any other state acting in the same way. It is an example of the opposite of just war.
The basic war policy of the U.S. has been conducted from the basis of a might makes right ethic, with a thin overlay of concern for unintended consequences such as death of innocents. It’s been that way forever, but Trump has taken it an extreme of blatancy and disregard for ethical norms even as window dressing. To the degree any just war requirements are invoked, it is actually to legitimate the U.S.’s action as a kind of holy war or crusade that justifies anything deemed necessary. Just war theory functions to legitimate holy war by all means for the U.S.
Robert, I understand the force of your argument, and you’re not wrong to note how often American policy has operated on the assumption that power itself provides legitimacy. Moreover, in recent years—particularly under Donald Trump—the pretense of moral justification has grown thinner, the rhetoric more unrestrained, and the appeal to ethical norms more selective. What was once framed as reluctant necessity is now, at times, articulated with a kind of triumphant bluntness.
However, I would push back on one point. Just war theory is not what legitimates a “holy war.” It is what states invoke when they wish to sanctify actions already determined by strategic interest. In other words, the distortion lies not in the tradition itself but in its appropriation. The U.S. is hardly alone in doing this; empires throughout history—Christian, Muslim, secular—have wrapped their objectives in moral language to secure public support.
Moreover, the tradition was never meant to baptize national will. Its purpose has always been to restrain violence, not to bless it; to ask whether a state is acting justly, not to assume that it is. When a government appeals to just war criteria merely as window dressing, it is misusing a moral framework meant to hold it accountable.
Your skepticism is warranted. Yet the answer is not to discard the tradition but to reclaim it as a means of critique rather than legitimization. The danger is that once we abandon moral evaluation altogether, the only remaining metric is power—and power, unrestrained, inevitably becomes its own justification.
War is good business for the merchants who supply the tools of the trade.
Always has been, always will be.
As a young man I faced the possibility of going to war and dying there. I read the book and watched the movie , ‘The Red Badge of Courage.’
I will never forget the opening scene of ‘Patton’ and the quote, “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country”.
It all stirs young men to step and fight for a cause.
Recently I read this book, ‘Nuclear War,’ by Annie Jacobsen.
This is the most terrifying thing I have ever read! The whole idea is in a matter of a couple of days evil obsessed men will essentially destroy the lives of billions and there is nothing I can do about it.
This begs the question, “is it a just war to stop another evil man and his followers from getting control of a nuclear bomb and the delivery system to use it?
For almost 50 years the world and Presidential Administrations have tried their best to placate just 2 men and prevent them from arming themselves. Was it worth it then and is the current war now worth it?
Only history will eventually tell the story.
The ‘Red Badge of Courage’ is something every generation has to face.
TH
The question you raise is precisely the moral fault line we keep returning to. Stopping a man bent on acquiring a nuclear weapon may feel like a just cause, but just war theory demands more than fear of what an adversary might do. Moreover, decades of attempting to contain or placate particular leaders have shown how often strategy is driven by political calculation rather than moral clarity.
The harder truth is this: even a seemingly righteous objective does not automatically make a war just. The criteria of just cause, right intention, proportionality, and last resort still stand, and pre-emptive strikes—especially on the basis of secret intelligence—strain those criteria to the breaking point.
History may indeed render its verdict. However, the Church cannot wait for history. Our calling is to evaluate not only the evil we fear, but the means we choose to confront it—and to refuse any rationale that grants unlimited moral license to the state.
Muff
This is what Forbes says…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ilanberman/2026/02/26/the-dollars-and-cents-of-military-action-against-iran/
the ceaseless blather of the current admin undermines any justification or legitimacy of this incursion into Iran. There is no evidence cited for anything, no appeal to law or the constitution, no point toward UN or allied support/coalition building (Israel doesn’t count), nor even appeals to common sense. The bumbling haste to do something big quickly reflects only on DJT himself and the level of bootlicking done by his minions. There is no touchstone of honor where this administration can be engaged in an honest conversation about just war.
filbertz,
I share your concern. When an administration offers no coherent articulation of cause—no grounding in constitutional authority, no appeal to international law, no engagement with allies beyond those already aligned in interest—it becomes very difficult to speak meaningfully about just war. Moreover, when the rhetoric is impulsive and the decision-making opaque, the moral framework collapses before it can even be applied.
Just war theory assumes that a state is willing to make a sober, public case for its actions. When that willingness is absent, when the language of honor and accountability is replaced with bluster and self-promotion, the moral conversation has already been forfeited. The tragedy is not simply that the justification is thin; it is that the administration appears uninterested in justification at all. And without that, the Church is left to name what is happening with clarity: power exercised without moral restraint is not just—no matter who wields it…
Donald Trump — that is the name of an evil man who is in control of nuclear weapons and the delivery system to use them. Does that mean that any and all measures that would prevent him from using them would be legitimate and justified? The correct answer is: No, not in his case ….or any other.
“These People Kill People” thread/article regarding the false prophet/grifters who have populated the so-called Christian landscape for years hold much in common with this white house in terms of mindset, lack of mooring to scripture/constitution, addiction to power & influence, preeminence of loyalty, and gullibility of the followers. The dangerous shift in DJT away from even attempting to sell his base on the ‘merits’ of invading Iraq is a sobering development. Many of his former heralds are calling him out, not that he cares.
my error, Iran.
When we speak of Trump’s lack of a moral compass, we’re naming the core problem for any just war analysis. Just war reasoning assumes a leader who can act with truthfulness, restraint, and some orientation toward the common good. What we see instead is volatility, impulsiveness, and the use of power as an extension of personal grievance.
Moreover, without a stable moral framework at the center of decision-making, any appeal to just war criteria becomes meaningless. This is why the moment feels so unanchored: a state without moral discipline cannot wage a just war, no matter how compelling the cause it claims.
Duane, The problem is that when invoking just war, the various administrations only really concern themselves with one: just cause. Just cause is the easiest of the requirements to satisfy; administrations just say,”Trust us. The target is on the threshold of using weapons that would be catastrophic to us and allies. Do you really want to allow them to use those weapons?” At which point the just cause proposed is assented to, and the assent is sold to Congress and the American public as just war, which justifies ever unjust means. Just war theory in the abbreviated form has become all that America as a whole responds to or concerns itself about. Just war has been redefined by those who want war. Those who are concerned with just war in its original definition have become irrelevant to the public discussion of what is called just war. “Oh, you think the cause may be just? That’s all we need to know, thank you so much for being our guest for this interview…I’m afraid we’re out of time.
“
Trump says the Iranians have said they want to talk now, and that they should’ve done it sooner. But weren’t there talks ongoing before the American attack interrupted them, and weren’t more planned? So how would these talks differ from those? When Trump says that they are willing to talk now, he means they are willing to surrender. Well, we’ll see. But nothing, “success” included, can alter the fact that this attack was immoral and unjust.
Robert,
You’re exactly right that “just cause” has become the only criterion most administrations bother to invoke. It is the easiest box to check because it depends on unverifiable claims: “Trust us. The threat is imminent.” Once that assertion is made, the rest of the just war tradition is quietly discarded. Moreover, when just cause is isolated from right intention, proportionality, last resort, and legitimate authority, it becomes a tool for sanctifying whatever response the state already wants to pursue.
This is the distortion: just war hasn’t failed; it’s been reduced. The full moral framework has been abandoned in favor of a single convenience criterion that offers maximum political cover with minimal scrutiny. Those who insist on the tradition as a whole—its discipline, its limits, its moral logic—are treated as irrelevant or antiquated voices slowing down the machinery of power.
The irony is painful but clear. When “just cause” becomes the only requirement, the state can wage any war it wishes while still claiming the mantle of moral legitimacy. And when that happens, what is called “just war” is no longer just—it is simply war with a slogan.
But, you are right, we are stuck having only the rhetoric of just war in its full, original definition to chasten the practice of Imperial War, even if the term is redefined to serve the goals of Empire. Using it may result in being sidelined again and again, but whatever language used to convey just war guidelines would have the same fate. However frustrating it may be there is no other strategy. I just get so angry seeing the concept and language co-opted again and again, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater would only result in one more incident of “collateral damage.”
Meanwhile, a girls elementary school was leveled by so-called smart bombs, casualties unconfirmed, but rumored to be dozens. No acceptance of responsibility, no pause to reflect that, perhaps the wrong road was taken. The radicalization of the next generation of jihadists were just handed all the motivation needed to kill our children and grandchildren. This lack of foresight, planning, and care will not move the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their oppressive government, to embrace the US and Israel’s idea of a future? Come on.
I know…
Sometimes this sad world seems like nothing but a tragedy.
I’ve been thinking about the Iran mess all weekend…how people do things without reviewing history, planning a future for the country/people involved, with no direct provocation from the other side…it’s a mess, and will probably guarantee an increase in terrorism and another 20 years of the U.S. being involved in another long, drawn-out conflict in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Rubio is in some kind of “negotiations” with Raúl Castro’s grandson over the fate of Cuba (totally bypassing the current president in power). I keep wondering if that is the next country we will invade. I’m disgusted.
I suppose we, the US, has had a meddlesome mindset for some time, thinking our plan or perspective is the best, our society most worth emulating all while ignoring the arch of history, the depth of culture, the nuance and finery of other viewpoints. To destroy two nations’ leadership and governments within a month with clearly no plan or strategy beyond the attacks/arrests is mind boggling. We have a petulant toddler destroying his room with tolerant adults shrugging their shoulders, smiling benignly. The GOP is toast if we make it to midterms, regardless of how meddlesome they are in the elections, or there will be uprisings in the streets like there are in Tehran.
filbertz
I share your sense that the United States has long carried an instinctive confidence in its own perspective—a confidence that, at times, slips into the kind of cultural arrogance that disregards history, regional nuance, or the internal logic of other societies. Moreover, the rapid dismantling of leadership structures in two nations without a coherent post-action strategy does not communicate strength; it reveals a profound lack of moral and political foresight.
The metaphor of a petulant child is not far off, though the tragedy is that the consequences fall not on the child but on entire populations. When those entrusted with power abandon prudence, those without power are left to carry the weight of their decisions. And when political parties—whether the GOP or any other—become captive to expediency rather than principle, the civic fabric inevitably frays.
Whether we reach the midterms in stability or turmoil, the deeper issue remains: a nation cannot act justly abroad when it refuses to act responsibly at home. Moreover, unrest—whether in Washington or in Tehran—is always a sign that leaders have lost the moral trust of those they claim to govern. That should sober us long before it angers us.
Hegseth just said rules of engagement were “stupid “, and characterized them as worthless relics of the inept woke regimes that preceded them.
John in AZ
When someone dismisses rules of engagement as “stupid,” they reveal far more about themselves than about the rules. Furthermore, the laws and norms governing the use of force are not artifacts of “woke regimes”; they are the hard-won lessons of centuries of bloodshed. They exist to restrain the very impulses Hegseth celebrates—the impulse to act first, justify later, and ignore the moral cost entirely.
Rules of engagement are not signs of weakness. They are signs that a nation still remembers the difference between force and justice. When public voices mock those boundaries, what they are really mocking is the idea that military power carries moral responsibility. And when that responsibility is abandoned, the result is not strength but brutality—unrestrained, unaccountable, and ultimately self-destructive.
those dog-whistle terms are only to appeal to the base–which H believes will perk their ears up and heel. Support for this action on top of Venezuela is minimal, opposition mounting both within and without.
H doesn’t like accountability as a person who has been repeatedly burned by the consequences of his actions. Yet there was a cocoon of protection in MAGA, Fox News, and the DJT admin. Life afterwards might not be so kind.
Duane
I just want to make it clear that I am anti-war, anti-nukes and believe in working together for a peaceful and productive life.
The problem is there are always those who want to control and dominate others. It isn’t limited to nations and war, just look at the whole reason for this blog and the behaviors of pastors. Same mentality, just a smaller scale.
This is why we have people to defend and take care and protect us and others. Sheep dogs is a an analogy
What the U.S. and Israel are doing in Iran is atrocity.
Robert F
I am happy you and I have the right and ability to publicly state our opinions and feelings. Sadly there are many nations and religions which do not allow such a right. What you just stated would bring at minimum arrest or worse, death.
During COVID people in Australia had their homes raided and arrested for Facebook posts which were against the Government’s positions and requirements. Canada has taken away parents and charged them for how they raise their children (issue being gender identification). China just sentenced a man to prison for reporting corruption in Hong Kong.
Yes you and I are blessed to be able to call your Government guilty of “atrocities.”
Enjoy your hard fought for freedoms, it is unique in world history.
What the U.S. is doing in Iran right now has nothing to do with free speech in the U.S., but if the price of free speech were atrocity, I’d gladly surrender it.
Terrorism is terrorism, whether conducted by states or non-state actors.
Robert F
Your ability to criticize it is about your freedom. And in case you forgot, native Iranians do not have your freedom to call their Leaders or what they did to their own citizens an atrocity.
These same Iranian leaders would also impose their will on you and I. Just one true religion and way of life under them.
There is no such thing as a ‘just war’.
Muff
As I said earlier in this thread, “I tend to be more in sympathy with the position of the church in its first three centuries of life…”
TH,
Trump is the imminent threat to freedom of speech in this country, not the Iranian leaders or anyone else. If he could, he would outlaw all criticism of him, that’s very clear. He hasn’t found a way to do that yet, but he’s working on it through his weaponized DOJ. One way they’ve started is by labeling non-terrorist groups and individuals terrorists.
As for freedom of religion, his movement has plenty of Christian nationalists that want their form of Christianity to have favored status as a religion, and he’d be glad to give that to them if he can wrangle it.
Even by the measure of the probability of success, something most Americans likely think is a given, everything I’ve learned indicates that the topography of Iran and its geographical positioning makes it practically immune to even a large ground force invasion, which would incur extraordinary losses akin to the Normandy invasion, but even worse than that due to the mobility of the attacking units and the rough terrain they would hide and run in. And Iran can prevent passage through the Gulf of Hormuz indefinitely with mobile weaponry and across a wide rough terrain that would guarantee high ground advantage as an extreme force magnifier. They know their terrain and they know how to use it as a weapon. And the boast of the acting Iranian leader that if American ground units were to attack Iran they would be humiliated was not an empty boast; it’s a fact. This would be nothing like the invasion of Iraq — the military leaders at the Pentagon understand that, but our ignorant civilian administration will not listen to wisdom.
The Iranian regime will not be overthrown. It may be willing to negotiate, but it would insist on its own survival, and that means it would continue to sow unrest in the region. It’s nuclear capability has been degraded, but the other stated goals of Israel and the U.S. of regime change and neutralization of Iran’s ability to sow regional unrest would not be achieved. In the long run, even the nuclear program could revive.