KLC welcomes civil discussion and disagreement about contemporary issues. Thus, the views expressed in our opinion pieces are not official KLC positions but those of the author.
By Craig G. Bartholomew
War is a terrible thing, full of unimaginable horror. This came home to me recently reading Andrew Graham-Dixon’s Vermeer: A Life Lost and Found (Allen Lane, 2025). The book includes harrowing descriptions of the religious wars in Europe of that time, whose brutality exceeded anything I had imagined. As Christians we are heir to a deep tradition of reflection on war, from luminaries such as Augustine, Aquinas and many others. Of course, a strong and respectable strand of Christian thought is pacifist, in which case war is always wrong.
For those of us who are not pacifists, we have the sustained reflection on just-war theory over centuries. This approach recognises that in a fallen, broken world, war, although never desirable, may be necessary and just in certain circumstances. Hence, the just-war theory. Just-war theory is not static and continues to be rethought. Nevertheless, I suggest that it, accompanied by the rules of war in international law, provides us with a lens through which to assess the war against Iran. We should not take this lens lightly. For almost all of us with a memory, we have some idea of the horrors that can be unleashed when the Pandora’s box of war is opened. Things easily spiral out of control and the just-war theory and international law are designed to constrain the horrors of conflict.
The Trump administration and the Israeli government have unilaterally declared war on Iran. Thus, a question Christians ought to ask is, how does this war line up alongside the criteria for a just war?
The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be:
having just cause;
being a last resort;
being declared by a proper authority;
possessing right intention;
having a reasonable chance of success; and
the end being proportional to the means used.
All of these criteria merit detailed discussion but in the case of the US-Israeli war against Iran they are illuminating.
1. Watching a BBC reporter discussing the attack on Iran it would have been funny if it was not so deadly serious as the reporter struggled to get her head around why this attack had been launched. Amidst several different reasons given by the US administration and commentators thus left scratching their heads, it appears that this is a war that having been launched is now looking for a defensible cause.
2. Clearly this attack was not a war of last resort. As with Israel and the US’s previous attack on Iran it took place amidst negotiations.
3. This is doubtful, to say the least, since the US congress was not consulted. According to the US Senate website “The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war.” See here.
We may well be glad to see the end of the Ayatollah. However, it is worth remembering this aspect of US law:
Executive Order 12333 United States Intelligence Activities
2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.
4. It is not clear what the intention with this war is but according to international law not all intentions are acceptable, even if clear. It appears that there was no imminent threat from Iran.
5. To have a reasonable chance of success the endgame would need to be set out clearly which it has not been.
6. If the end is not clear then the use of force cannot possibly be proportional.
All of which is to say that it really is very difficult to argue that the US-Israeli war against Iran is a just war. According to international law it also appears to be illegal. This means that it is both illegal and unjust, a war of aggression, and that, according to international law, Iran has a right to defend itself.
It is important to note that this is decidedly not to position oneself as a supporter of the Iran regime. As the Spanish prime minister Pedro Sanchez puts it, it is possible to be against the Iranian regime and against an illegal and unjust attack on Iran. Such nuance is indispensable in such situations. Here in the UK the leader of the emergent Green Party has articulated a similar, consistent position.
At present missiles are flying around the Middle East, and national politics and relations among America’s traditional allies are being stress tested. It is worth watching the somewhat heated dialogue between Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart about Keir Starmer’s shifting position here.
This has undoubtedly become a very messy situation. Amidst it a clear-eyed view of truth and justice is critically important. We are entering into a situation where crucial words are being evacuated of meaning. The loss of life in Israel, Iran, in the Gulf states and among American troops is tragic. I have quoted before John Donne’s poem “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” and it seems appropriate to quote it again here:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
Amidst this chaos we need to hold fast to certain words. Words like truth, justice, trust, integrity, humility, peace, war crimes, law, cannot be allowed to become wax noses without terrible consequences following in its wake. An Iranian missile landing in Tel Aviv may qualify as a war crime, but one cannot denounce it as such without acknowledging that not far away the people of Gaza struggle to exist after a genocide awash with war crimes. Nor can one ignore the fact that the war on Iran fulfils a dream of Benjamin Netanyahu, himself wanted for possible war crimes by the ICC. Nor can one ignore the US administrations’ authoritarian tilt, apparent siding with Russia in its war of aggression against Ukraine, and Donald Trump’s ambivalent relationship with truth.
Our politicians will need to find ways to negotiate these muddy, treacherous waters. They will often have to be pragmatic but it would be good if they did so clear eyed and consciously. Amidst the resultant complexity and mess, our responsibility is to think hard about the situation and to bear witness to the truth as we understand it.
At our recent staff meeting, shortly after the war began, we found comfort in reading Revelation 4, a reminder of who ultimately is on the throne of history. Such a vision at this time enables us to enter into the spirit of these words from a poem by T. S. Eliot:
Teach us to sit still
Even among these rocks
Our peace in His will
Recentring is essential at this time, to find our way back to that quiet place of trust and difficult hope. However, it is precisely from such a place that we are called to bear witness.
