I’ve always been cognizant of how little we really know with regard to national and international affairs, not being privy to what goes on beneath the radar and getting our information from 2nd, 3rd, and 4th hand media outlets – many of which have ideological slants.
Hence, when it comes to geopolitical events like the Iranian conflict, I submit to the just war theory and its proposition that decisions on going to war must be made by legitimate authority. On whether the Iran attack is a ‘war’ in the strict sense or not, and on whether congressional approval is necessary for it, I let the politicians fight it out. It can be argued that both Obama and Trump have recently stretched the limits of the executive branch with regard to this issue.
Putting all these points together, I currently have no strong view on whether the move by the U.S. and Israel was justified.
Nevertheless, the mind’s eye can see many potentially good consequences (and some bad ones) coming from it, especially if the regime falls. For example: freedom for Iranian women, great reduction of terrorist funding, having a friend in an oil-rich gulf state, finally seeing a little justice for the hostage crisis of ’79, eliminating a hostile nuclear threat, greater peace for neighboring states including Israel, and more. Yet, potential consequences are not how to judge whether an act is justified. The primary criterion for that, according to Catholic moral theology, is not the consequences of the act, but the act itself, on whether it is good or evil.
Traditionally, from the time of Augustine, Christians have had recourse to the just war theory for determining this. It’s several criteria must be interpreted prudently, and, again, it must be ultimately decided by competent authority. That said, a few of its requirements concern me, which disable me at the moment from seeing this war’s justification. For your own edification, here is the just war doctrine boiled down and made simple:
