Contra many on the left in Congress, the media, and academia (as well as some on the right) who have criticized President Trump over the ongoing strikes on Iran as an unjust use of force, Operation Epic Fury is, in fact, justified according to the framework of Just War Theory. Whether or not Epic Fury will prove to have been a prudent decision remains to be seen, but from an ethical perspective it is certainly defensible.
Just War Theory posits three moral categories whose stipulations must be met for the use of military force to be considered justified: jus ad bellum, or justice in going to war, jus in bello, or justice in the conduct of the war, and jus post bellum, or justice administered once the conflict is over. Since it is still early in the conflict, the issue of jus in bello is best considered later on when more information is available. Similarly, questions of jus post bellum are difficult to address prior to the end of major military operations. Nevertheless, questions of jus ad bellum are much more readily grappled with. Drawing on Michael Walzer’s famous text, Just and Unjust Wars, President Trump’s decision to initiate Epic Fury was clearly legitimate according to the tenets of Just War Theory.
Just cause is the first jus ad bellum condition to be met. For Walzer, this means simply (and exclusively) self-defense. For others, this might include a war/intervention to prevent genocide or other egregious human rights abuses. Whether by Walzer’s narrower conceptualization or to prevent human rights violations, I argue that the Trump administration has met these criteria for four reasons.
First, Iran declared war on the United States in 1979 when the Shiite clerics under Ayatollah Khomeini took power, chanting “Death to America,” storming the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and taking 66 Americans hostage. Iran was also responsible for the deaths of 220 U.S. Marines and 21 other U.S. military members in its attack on U.S.forces in Beirut in 1983. Between 2003 and 2011, during the U.S. war in Iraq, Iran-backed and -trained forces killed over 600 Americans there. On October 7, 2023, Hamas, an Iranian proxy, killed 48 Americans and took 12 more hostage in addition to killing more than 1,100 Israelis. There have been many, many other smaller-scale Iranian attacks against Americans since 1979. Iran is also reported to have tried to assassinate former U.S. leaders John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Donald Trump himself, all foiled. Indeed, the U.S. has had a rationale for attacking Iran in the sense of self-defense for some time.
Second, Iran and its three proxies, whom I call “The Three H’s of the Apocalypse,” the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah, have been at war with America’s ally, Israel, for decades. Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, “Israel must be wiped off the map,” and the now-deceased Ayatollah Khamenei said publicly at least three times that Israel was a “deadly, cancerous tumor” that would be “uprooted and destroyed.” Going to war against Iran on behalf of one of America’s closest allies, which itself has been engaged in a low-intensity war of self-defense for decades, is a legitimate rationale for military action. Were this not the case, it would mean that Iran (or any third party) could effectively veto America’s choices of whom to ally with.
Third, Iran has sought nuclear weapons for some time. Given Iran’s leaders’ statements against Israel and the U.S., and its status as the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism, it would be irrational for the U.S. and Israel to not do all they can (including Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025) to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Fourth and finally, there is a human rights case for intervention in Iran’s affairs, given the regime’s repression of its people, most pointedly over the last couple of months where 30,000 Iranian citizens are estimated to have been killed. There has been some lack of clarity over the ultimate purpose of the ongoing strikes, with Trump denying regime change as the objective while coalition partner Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued that, yes, regime change is the goal (it should be noted here that taking out Supreme Leader Khamenei was part of the Israeli operation, so is not considered as a part of the just war calculus here). In either case, both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have urged Iranian citizens to rise up and take back their country. Whether self-defense, support of an ally, or by way of a human rights rationale, the U.S. has just cause for its attack on Iran.
Legitimate Authority is the second condition of Just War’s ad bellum rationale. Donald Trump is the U.S. President, and as commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, he is the legitimate authority to prosecute this American attack on Iran.
Right Intention is a third condition for just war. This too has been met, for President Trump appears to be pursuing his policy on Iran not for personal benefit, oil, or territorial gain, etc. He has been trying for some time to bring Iran to the negotiating table to achieve a lasting peace and the end of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but Iran has not been willing. While more clarity from the Trump administration on whether Epic Fury is strictly to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon or if regime change is the true goal would be helpful for purposes of moral analysis, this is information we are unlikely to have until the guns are silent.
Last Resort is another condition to be met. Given the many rounds of negotiation with Iran’s leaders under Trump’s leadership, in addition to negotiations under previous U.S. administrations, along with Iran’s continued intransigence in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, it seems reasonable for President Trump to claim these attacks on Iran were a last resort for protecting the interests of the U.S. and its ally Israel, by keeping Iran from having weapons of mass destruction.
Proportionality is the last condition for ad bellum just war considerations, and here too I think President Trump is on solid footing. The Shiite theocratic dictatorship that has ruled Iran since 1979 is responsible for thousands, perhaps millions of deaths. The numerous dead Iranians slain by their own government over the last couple of months, perhaps as many as 30,000, to the many dead from Iran’s attacks on Israeli, Americans, and others, whether by Iran itself or by its proxies in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, mean that Operation Epic Fury is not disproportionate to the damage already done by the regime and its proxies, or the danger it posed to international peace, particularly if they were to acquire nuclear weapons.
In conclusion, it seems clear that the Trump Administration can argue with confidence that its campaign against Iran is justified with regard to the jus ad bellum requirements of Just War Theory. With Iran’s recent attacks on ten other nations not directly involved in the fighting (including the UAE, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and it appears Turkey and Azerbaijan), Trump’s case has only gotten stronger given the need to respond to these attacks on U.S. friends and allies that were completely unprovoked.
