Bishop Strickland On Israel And Just War Doctrine

In the YouTube embedded above, Bp Joseph Strickland uses just war doctrine, as partly outlined in CCC 2309, to, question the moralty of Israel's attacks on Iran. He cites it at 2:10:

"The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration." That's from the Catechsm of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2309.

But then he departs from the Catechism and never quite comes back to it:

A preemptive war, a war launched not in defense but in anticipation, is not a just war. As Pope St John Paul II said before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, "War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity," from his address to the dioplomatic corps, January 13, 2003. And Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, with clarity warned that the concept of a preemptive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. . . . A nation does not have the moral right to wage war simply because it suspercts it might be attacked.

I've been looking carefully at the arguments pro and con for both Israel's right to attack Iran starting on June 13 and the justification for any US direct military assistance in that and potential succeeding attacks, although we must acknowledge that the overall strategy behind the attacks, which were timed to begin immediately after the expiration of Trump's 60-day deadline for negotiations to conclude, was clearly worked out in collaboration with Trump from the start.

For now, Bp Strickland's attempt to use just war doctrine against Israel leaves me unconvinced. His unstated assumption is that the Israel-Iran conflict began on June 13 with Israeli aerial attacks on Iranian air defenses and nuclear facilities. However, the conflict between Israel and Iran has been an ongoing proxy war for decades, something Wikipedia acknowledges with an entry on Iran-Israel Proxy Conflict.

While this conflict has existed since the Iranian mullahs seized power, its current phase dates to October 7, 2023:

In the weeks since the Hamas massacre on October 7, pundits have debated whether or not Iran helped Hamas develop the plan for the terrorist assault and if Iran had foreknowledge of the attack. Citing a Hamas source, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iran helped plot the attack and that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp gave it the go-ahead at a meeting in Beirut. Another Journal report claims that in the weeks leading up to the assault, hundreds of Hamas and other Islamist militants received specialized training in Iran. . . . Ultimately, the details of Iran’s role in the plot itself will emerge. But this much is already clear: Iran has funded, armed, trained, and provided intelligence to Hamas for decades. Though Hamas has multiple income streams, funding from Iran has been especially important for the group’s military and terrorist structures.

In other words, the June 13 attack isn't something that emerged de novo between parties that had previously been at peace like, say, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. As of May 2024,

Senior Iranian military officials are developing concepts for destroying Israel without having to defeat the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Iran recognizes the technological superiority of the IDF and the risk that an overt war could draw in the United States, which Iranian leaders desire to avoid. . . . Their thinking proceeds from the theory that destabilizing Israel would cause Jewish citizens to flee Israel and end the long-term viability of a Jewish state in Israel.

So I'm not entirely on board with the idea that the June 13 attacks created an entirely new, preemptive state of war. Instead, Israel since its founding millennia ago has been in a defensive posture vis-a-vis its surrounding states, something current Israeli leadership continually cites.

But there's another problem with the Biblical context of the Almighty's purpose for Israel. In Numbers 13, God tells Moses to send spies into the Promised Land to evaluate its suitability. They return and report that it certainly is suitable, but they'll have to fight the current inhabitants, and they're not sure if they want to do that. The upshot is that Moses hesitates. In Numbers 14, God condemns Israel to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, one year for each day the spies spent in Canaan, for its unwillingness to follow God's plan.

So then we eventually come to the Siege of Jericho, which is definitely not part of a defensive war on Israel's side -- Israel instead is belatedly trusting God's instructions. Jericho amounts to a major conundrum for supporters of just war doctrine, especially for those who argue that the atomic bombs used against Japan weren't justifiable -- except that the destruction of Jericho was an event comparable to a nuclear blast:

Following God's law, the Israelites killed every man and woman, the young and the old, as well as the oxen, sheep, and donkeys. Only Rahab [a Canaanite prostitute who hid two Israeli spies], her parents, brothers and all "those who belonged to her" were spared. They were incorporated into Israel. Joshua then cursed anybody who rebuilt the foundations and gates, with the deaths of their firstborn and youngest child respectively. This was eventually fulfilled by Hiel the Bethelite under King Ahab's reign.

I asked the web, "How does the Siege of Jericho conform with just war doctrine?" and couldn't find a single specific link that gave me a satisfactory answer. However, "AI" replied,

The question of how the siege of Jericho conforms with Just War Doctrine is complex and often debated. Just War Theory is a framework that outlines ethical and moral principles for judging the justification of going to war (jus ad bellum) and the methods used in war (jus in bello).

. . . The conquest of Jericho is often described as a "holy war". This suggests a divine mandate rather than a war fought for typical "just" causes like self-defense or correcting a grave injustice.

. . . God's plan for conquering Jericho involved unconventional actions, such as marching around the city and the collapse of the walls through divine intervention, rather than conventional military tactics.

. . . Some interpretations might argue that the divine command to conquer Jericho establishes a unique context where standard Just War principles may not apply in the same way.

. . . The destruction of Jericho was also seen as a way to prevent the Israelites from being corrupted by the "outsiders" and their practices. This could be seen as a form of preventative action, which is a consideration in Just War Theory.

Not too bad for AI, is it? But didn't Bp Strickland just say that no preemptive war is just? I went back to searching the web and found an essay that discusses the problem in relation to Aquinas (who, however, never directly addressed just war in relation to Jericho):

Ruling out anticipatory defense in various modes confounds morality and practicality, entailing a cure worse than the disease. Instead, prudence as St. Thomas Aquinas envisaged it—the cardinal virtue of right reason about right things to be done—ought to determine whether or not to use force sooner rather than later in accordance with the other criteria for jus ad bellum Aquinas stipulates: rightful authority, just cause, and right intention. Aquinas maintains a wise silence on the question of precisely whether or when force should be used sooner rather than later. So should we.

. . . Aquinas’s formulation of just war theory grounded in the cardinal virtue of prudence should loom large in any calculation of when, how, for what purposes, and to what effect the United States should wage war.

Whether the United States resorts to force sooner rather than later should be a prudential judgment, not a categorical one.

And this brings us back to CCC 2309, a part that Bp Strickland doesn't cite:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

I read the whole meaning of CCC 2309 to say that although all four conditions for legitimate defense must be met, there is nevertheless room for evaluation on the part of civil and military authority.

So far, I'm leaning toward a position that it's by no means clear that the current phase of the Iran-Israel conflict is any sort of discrete, anticipatory attack on Israel's part. The justification and the proper tactics lie within the prudential judgment of US and Israeli leadership. Every current indication is that these issues are under thorough debate within US leadership in particular, and President Trump appears to be carefully weighing arguments from all sides.