Martyn Whittock has written for Evangelicals Now engaging with the question of whether the Iran-USA war is a just war. As he explains:
“Christian Just War theory represents one of the most influential ethical traditions for evaluating the moral legitimacy of warfare. Developed within Christian theology but later influencing secular international ethics and law, the theory attempts to reconcile two competing commitments: the Christian call to peace; and the moral responsibility of political authorities to protect the innocent and oppose those threatening harm to others.”
Up until now, most critiques, to the extent that they are critiques at all, of the war have denounced it as an illegal war. I’m pleased to see someone attending to the justice or morality question here because, as I’ve repeatedly argued over the years on this site, defining an international action as legal or illegal is not without its difficulties.
The legalities of war
In the case of the US/Israeli strikes against Iran, the determination for whether or not it is “illegal” depends on arguments concerning what the UN Charter says about the use of force against another nation. Article 51 states:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
It is important to be clear about what the Charter is and is not doing here. Whilst it tends to be quoted to show that the UN permits war in the case of self-defence, this is not in fact what it is doing. Rather, it is saying that the specific responsibilities that nations have conferred upon the UN do not remove a nation’s right to self-defence. That right was considered to exist prior to and separate to the formation of the UN and has not been given up by signing the treaty. Nations reserve the right to take military action in the case of self-defence.
What Nations have committed to in the case of the UN is to give it responsibility as follows:
“The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
In other words, the UN has primary responsibility for maintaining peace around the World and that is indeed why it was specifically set up. Note, that regional bodies may also carry out those responsibilities, providing they align with the same values (see Chatper 8, Article 52.
In terms of whether or not a country can or should go to war, the crucial part of the Charter is “Article 2” which states:
- All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
- All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Nations are to seek peaceful means to settle disputes and not to use military force. The UN’s own reasons for using force therefore are focused on restoring peace and stability. This is important because it means that the charter doesn’t deal with a couple of crucial questions. First, what should happen in terms of protecting a people within a country for humanitarian reasons. Understandably, the UN did not want to get into that because as we’ve seen frequently, coming to the aid of a people within another nation’s borders has been a frequent excuse for aggression.
However, what this means is that we are not given any explicit exemptions to Article 2. It would of course be hard to read article 51 without recognising an exemption, though even then, it is until the UN are in a position to act. Further, the question is not answered as to whether or not the nations can go to war for reasons that the UN would not. The result is that as the world has changed, moving on from the days when the presence of superpowers that could bring about mutually assured destruction, we have been left with questions that the Charter did not answer. First, of all, must self-defence always be re-active or is there basis for pre-emptive action? If so, on what basis? Secondly, should nations step in on humanitarian grounds, to protect a people against genocide from their own rulers? The UN is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs.
“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
The UN is further limited in terms of being able to take such action if it were allowed to authorise it due to how it is set up. The veto held by the permanent members of the security mean that it is unlikely that the UN will come to a decision to authorise action in most cases. This leads to a second question. What should countries do if they face a situation where the UN is unable to act? This may become important for example if a nation, arguably is affected by a disruption to the peace that directly affects it but falls short of a direct attack on them so as to justify self-defence. For example, in the unlikely event of France and Ireland going to war, the UK would find herself sandwiched between the two nations with a real threat to her peace and security.
There is a further consideration to take into account when discussing legality. International Law is really about the oversight of treaties and customs between countries. It’s not law the same way that domestic law is. Whilst a category of international criminal law has evolved over the years, this still remains highly political. People tend to confuse breach of treaty conditions with criminality but this is not the case. This is important because it helps us to understand what the consequences or penalties might be. There seems to be an assumption that as soon as someone like Jeremy Corbyn announces that Keir Starmer has been drawn into an illegal war that the International police will be round to arrest him and march him off for trial to the Hague. Similarly, you would get the impression from how the government have talked about the Chagos Islands that UN peace keepers were about to seize the islands and hand them over to Mauritius.
However, the reality is that some people might have a political opinion on both that we are in breach of some treaty agreements and technically, I guess the UN might expel us (though practically unlikely). However, in reality “illegal war” functions more as a marching slogan to give people a sense of moral superiority.
This leads us to think a bit more about how ethical considerations are taken.
A crash course in ethics
There are three main approaches to ethics. Some Christian theologians such as John Frame have argued that you need all three of them together to give a multi or tri-perspectival approach. These ethical approaches are: Deontological (Normative) Ethics Situational (Teleological Ethics) and Existential (character/virtue) ethics.
Deontological ethics, associated with philosophers command us to look at what the rules are, what is right and wrong. I guess that the focus on legality is a form of this, although this approach could be taken with or without the UN charter. The aim is to show that we can know and should do what is right rather than relying on utilitarian calculations. Situational ethics looks at the intent, the end goal, and asks you to decide morality in the context. So, for example when Kemi Badenoch and more overtly Nigel Farage acknowledged that the seizure of the Venezuelan president may have breached international law but was morally right because it dealt with a nasty dictator, they were taking this approach.
The third approach looks at the virtue of the person committing the act. Are they a moral, virtuous person. We most often see the reverse of this. For example, a lot of people might be pleased to see the back of the Ayatollah and want the regime to fall but consider it repugnant because it is Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu who are leading the war effort. From the other angle, it can be seen how we ended up in the Gulf War because this was seen as an act by virtuous people, or even more so, a virtuous culture. It was a war enacted by free, liberal democracies.
I want to highlight this because I think that Whittock’s article falls short in terms of giving us answers because he hasn’t stepped back to think through the meta-ethics. Remember that just war theory isn’t something directly from Scripture, it has arisen in the context of classical Christian theology but that does not mean it is explicitly Christian or Biblical. Just War theory is essentially a mixture of deontological and situational ethics. Consider the underpinning norms but also evaluate the context. However, the modern approach of looking to organisations like the UN and even NATO have added a virtue or existential ethic to the framing.
Is the Iran war ethical? We may think in terms of whether or not specific norms and rules are upheld. However, we then need to consider where we get those norms and rules from. Are they infallible? We may also look at the situation and goal. One challenge I would have here is over the lack of clarity in terms of reasons given. Is the US taking a form of self defence, whether that’s pre-emptive against a future nuclear attack or reactive against warfare from Iranian proxies, or is this an intervention on behalf of the Iranian people? Finally, we may still be left with virtue questions. Is Donald Trump, ethically the right person and is the USA the right country to lead such an attack. That’s not just about how we feel about Trump personally. Rather, it’s recognition that a big ethical decision is resting on one pair of shoulders. It is for that reason that George Bush built up a coalition of the willing. It’s also why it was premature for Trump to declare that British aircraft carriers were not needed. Perhaps they were not needed and are not needed in terms of adding fire power, but they might bring more moral and political ballast to the fray.
A look at the arguments
Whittock suggests that Just War theory offers a framework for evaluating the Iran war against the following criteria:
- “First is just cause, meaning that war must respond to a grave moral wrong such as aggression, invasion, or severe injustice. The most widely accepted just cause is the defence of innocent life against attack.
- Second is legitimate authority: Only properly constituted political authorities may declare war on behalf of a political community.
- Third is right intention, which requires that the purpose of the war be the restoration of justice and peace rather than revenge, conquest, or economic gain.
- Fourth is last resort, meaning that all reasonable diplomatic and non-violent alternatives must have been attempted before military force is used.
- Fifth is probability of success: a war that has no realistic chance of achieving its just objectives is considered morally irresponsible because it sacrifices lives without meaningful purpose.
- Finally, proportionality requires that the anticipated benefits of war outweigh the harm likely to be caused by the conflict.”
Whittock notes that people may argue that it is a just cause based on self-defence, pre-emptively against nuclear threat and in response to Iran’s military intervention over many years through her proxies.
He also observes
“Another argument advanced by some defenders of the current military intervention is the possibility that removing or weakening a repressive regime may contribute to justice and human rights. Iran’s government has a long track record of suppressing political dissent and restricting civil liberties. This has been bloodily demonstrated in late 2025/early 2026 by its killing of huge numbers of those protesting against the repressive nature of the regime. This has added to a long record of brutally repressing dissent, persecuting and killing women who challenge the regime’s discriminatory and controlling policies, and denying democratic expression. Although “regime change” is not traditionally a primary justification in classical Just War theory, some contemporary ethicists have suggested that humanitarian considerations may, in certain circumstances, strengthen the moral case for intervention.”
Against this, he argues that some critics may consider the war disproportionate and that preventative/pre-emptive attacks will be unacceptable to some Christian ethicists. He is also concerned about the longer term impact of the conflict. These are good concerns and questions to raise.
Falling short
I appreciate Whittock’s arguments and would commend his article for careful reading. It helps us to start to work through the issues. However, I do think his argument falls short for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think there is an absence or downplaying of some key considerations.
First, he downplays the extent to which the conflict is in response to an ongoing or imminent danger. In terms of a pre-emptive strike against a potential nuclear power, Whitlock relies on the rhetoric of Trump post the 2025 12 day war. Whilst there were loud boasts for rhetorical purposes about the extent to which Iran’s nuclear programme had been set back, there was a lot of scepticism. The reality was that we couldn’t guarantee that the bunker striking bombs had completely destroyed nuclear enrichment capability. Additionally, stockpiles of enriched uranium were believed to have been moved to more secure storage. Thirdly, Iran has demonstrated its ballistic missile capability to devastating effect. Iran does not have to build ICBMS to be a threat. A dirty bomb used as a warhead on a ballistic missile, or multiple missiles could have a devastating impact on US and UK bases, Israel and neighbouring Gulf states. Whitlock also seems to give minimal weight to the destruction and threat from Iran’s proxies. In addition to the Houthis and Hezbollah, there have been numerous foiled terrorist plots around the world. That the plots were foiled does not minimise the aggression at work.
Secondly, whilst Whittock seeks to offer an assessment over whether or not the action counts as just war, he omits to let us know what burden of proof he is assessing by. Are welooking for the case to be proved beyond possible doubt or on a balance of probabilities?
Thirdly, there is a crucial voice missing, that of the Iranian people. It does not mean that we have got to go to war just because many Iranians are crying out for an end to the brutal regime. However, there is something wrong with our moral arguments if they begin to sound academic and dry. We should surely give the voiceless a voice in our discussions.
Fourth, he fails to make an important distinction. You see we may not consider this war to be just and ethical. We may also disagree with Trumps strategy and tactics. However, that’s not the same as saying that it would never have been just and moral to go to war with Iran.
Faithroots 