Why war against Iran would be immoral
The stakes are too high, the provocations too small
Let's say you walked out your front door one morning to find your car had been vandalized overnight. It still works, but the tires are slashed, flat and uninflatable. You're right to be angry. You're right, even, to seek compensation for the crime and expense of making repairs. But would you seek the death penalty for the perpetrators?
No. Of course you wouldn't. Not if you have any sense of moral proportion.
So why, then, is America talking about going to war with Iran?
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
American officials are blaming Iran for several attacks on shipping in Middle East waterways in recent weeks, including two explosions that crippled tankers — one Japanese, one Norwegian — last week in the Gulf of Oman. Iranians deny responsibility, and the one piece of evidence the State Department has presented to the world as being "proof" of Iran's culpability depicts sailors removing a mine from a ship. It's not quite an open-and-shut case.
The good news is the attacks, so far, appear to be mostly an expensive bit of maritime vandalism. No ships have been sunk. No lives have been lost. No excuses should be made for the attackers — if they are indeed acting on orders from Tehran — but on a scale of international offense, it's difficult to make the case that these recent incidents amount to much more than a misdemeanor. The death penalty is not the appropriate response to a such a crime.
Going to war with Iran at this point, then, would be disproportionate and wrong.
Yet there's a sense that the United States is moving closer to making war, even if enthusiasm here and abroad seems fairly limited. Our European allies don't want war. Neither does Congress. President Trump even seems hesitant. But a familiar chorus of hawks — including some of Trump's closest advisers — is growing louder, demanding that America respond violently to Iran's provocations.
"These unprovoked attacks on commercial shipping warrant a retaliatory military strike," Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said Sunday on CBS.
Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist at The New York Times, went even further over the weekend, citing the U.S. military response to a 1988 mine attack on an American military frigate that injured 10 sailors and nearly sunk the ship.
"Four days later, the U.S. Navy destroyed half the Iranian fleet in a matter of hours," Stephens wrote, and later added: "We sank Iran's navy before. Tehran should be put on notice that we are prepared and able to do it again."
Stephens' proposal, in particular, raises a question or two: Is there anybody in the world who doesn't understand that the United States has a large and powerful military? Is there anybody who thinks this president, if sufficiently provoked, would hesitate to use that power? America doesn't need to use its military to send a message we're willing to use our military. Everybody already knows.
What would a strike at this point even accomplish? Mostly, it would kill the Iranians on board the boats and ships targeted by the United States — assuming the conflict didn't escalate from there. Dozens or even hundreds of lives would be snuffed out as retribution for what, so far, have been acts of property damage. That would be immoral. Whether you believe in just war theory, or whether you simply believe we must have a darned good reason to make the deadly decision to commit forces to battle, the conclusion should be same: The stakes are too high — and the provocations at this point too small and limited — to justify war against Iran.
While there may not be much enthusiasm for war with Iran, there seems to be even less pressure to actually make peace. That's a problem. The United States has spent the last year squeezing Iran's economy with sanctions, simply because President Trump didn't like the Iran nuclear deal. The result has been a slow and steady escalation of tensions that have now seemingly brought the two countries to the brink of battle — and the escalations continue: AP reported that Iran is set to break the uranium stockpile limit set by that nuclear deal.
The march to war is not inexorable. The people in charge — on both sides of the divide — still have choices to make. The United States and the international community have the right to ensure that shipping lanes in the region remain free and open to use. It does not follow, however, that the right response is to sink half of Iran's navy. Instead, the U.S. and Iran must start talking to each other again, if only through intermediaries.
Unless there is a definitive move toward peace, however, it seems likely the pressure to escalate will build. It has become commonplace for America's hawks to preface every talk of war with the assurance that "nobody" wants it to actually happen. It is difficult to believe those assurances. For now, however, they don't offer a sufficient reason to go to battle. The pretext is simply too thin.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a freelance writer who has spent nine years as a syndicated columnist, co-writing the RedBlueAmerica column as the liberal half of a point-counterpoint duo. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic, The Kansas City Star and Heatmap News. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
The art world and motherhood: the end of a final taboo?
Talking Point Hettie Judah's new touring exhibition offers a 'riveting riposte' to old cliches
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
'Musk's reliance on China draws rising scrutiny'
Today's Newspapers A roundup of the headlines from the US front pages
By The Week Staff Published
-
Biba: the story of a 'legendary emporium'
The Week Recommends Brand's 60th anniversary is being marked with retrospective celebrating the 'iconic shop's cultural importance'
By Adrienne Wyper, The Week UK Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Iran at the crossroads: have the mullahs lost their grip?
In Depth Iranian voters delivered a 'stinging rebuke' to the regime in parliamentary elections
By The Week UK Published
-
Women led Iran's protests. What will new elections mean for them?
Talking Points The protests, and the backlash, loom over the polling
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Will mounting discontent affect Iran election?
Today's Big Question Low turnout is expected in poll seen as crucial test for Tehran's leadership
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Iran and the 'Great Satan'
The Explainer Why the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran have been at each other's throats for more than four decades
By The Week UK Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
'Tuesday's chaos had Trump's fingerprints all over it'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
Who are Iran's proxies in the Middle East?
The Explainer Tehran's 'Axis of Resistance' includes Hezbollah, Hamas the Houthis as well as groups in Iraq, Syria and Bahrain
By The Week UK Published