February 28, 2026 marked an inflection point in America’s tumultuous relationship with Iran. On that day, the United States, in coordination with Israel, launched a military campaign against the theocratic Iranian regime. More than six months later, the war remains unresolved with relentless diplomatic efforts yet to bring an end to the hostilities.
JUST WAR AGAINST IRAN?
In that context, the Christian just war tradition offers important insights into the theological basis of the American military’s Iran campaign. In his magnum opus Summa Theologica, the Italian theologian and philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas systematized the foundations of just war, establishing the conditions under which the use of force can be morally justified. For Aquinas, the legitimate exercise of force was a matter of crucial importance. Aquinas argued that war can be waged only by the authority of the sovereign; such a war must be pursued for a just cause and with a right intention. Further, the ultimate motivation behind the waging of such a war is not to indulge in the callous exercise of force; rather, it must be directed towards the restoration of peace and order in the political community.
Washington’s resort to military force against Tehran satisfied the first of Aquinas’s requirements in the sense that the war was waged by the sovereign authority of the United States government. While critics may argue that the UN Security Council has the sole rightful authority to sanction the use of force, the just war tradition clearly asserts that the sovereign state is the primary custodian of peace, security, and justice.
The second requirement—that of a just cause—was met insofar as the war was waged to put an end to the campaign of violence Tehran and its proxies had been waging against Israel and other American allies in the Middle East, while also aiming to dismantle the ecosystem of oppression the Islamic Republic had imposed on its own people.
The third requirement—that of right intention, is certainly more difficult to ascertain. President Trump has consistently framed the campaign in terms of securing a lasting peace, while Prime Minister Netanyahu has presented the campaign as necessary in the sense that a regime change must be the objective. These stated objectives, however, reveal a divergence between Washington and Tel Aviv’s agendas, making the assessment of right intention criteria under the just war tradition considerably difficult.
THE INEVITABLE COSTS OF WAR
The foregoing discussion puts the spotlight on whether the use of force by the American military was justified despite its inability to achieve its strategic objectives. Can the pursuit of victory remain tragic even when it is undertaken in the name of a just cause?
The Indian epic Mahabharata, attributed to the sage Vyasa, offers some profound insights on this crucial question. One of the key themes in the epic is the competing interpretations of dharma where the moral dilemmas confronting key figures of the epic collide with the necessities of political action. This can be understood from two episodes: first, Krishna’s counsel to the warrior prince Arjuna before the commencement of the war of Kurukshetra; second, the aftermath of the war.
Krishna tells Arjuna “Considering your own duty, you should not waver. For a warrior, there is nothing higher than a righteous war.” It underlines the centrality of dharma as the guiding principle of conduct. Dharma can be understood as a sense of duty or responsibility arising from one’s obligations. Arjuna’s dilemma, under such trying circumstances, was not simply whether he wanted to fight, but whether his obligations permitted him to refrain from fighting in spite of the grave consequences the ensuing war may have entailed.
In a different yet comparable sense, America’s decision to go to war against Iran can also be viewed as a dilemma of political responsibility: war carries grave costs, and can result in consequences far beyond the battlefield, yet war may nonetheless be necessary—rooted in a sense of commitment to the cause of guarding the free world and for making the Middle East a safe place for America and its allies.
Yet the moral dilemma does not end with the decision to fight. The outcome of the war of Kurukshetra reveals the tragic burden victory imposed on the victor. Following the victory of Pandavas’ clan, the newly crowned ruler of Hastinapur, Yudhishthira, sombrely reflected on the devastation inflicted by the war,
“Sons and grandsons, brothers and fathers, fathers-in-law and teachers, maternal uncles and grandfathers; great Kshatriyas, relatives, friends, companions, sisters’ sons and kinsmen—all have been slain. Having witnessed the dreadful slaughter of my kinsmen, and the killing of hundreds of others—and countless other men besides—I burn with grief, O grandsire.”
The destruction of Iran’s military capabilities, the dismantling of its nuclear program and the neutralization of its formidable proxy network may certainly be considered as legitimate strategic objectives. Yet the devastation emerging from the battlefield—civilian suffering on one hand and regional instability triggered by such martial actions on the other—should not be lightly dismissed as the necessary cost of success.
The Mahabharata thus portrays war as a moral paradox: there will be circumstances in which fighting becomes a necessary responsibility, yet fulfilling that responsibility does not make the consequences of war any less tragic or lessen the ethical burden emanating from it. Arjuna had to fight, but Yudhishthira had to live with the outcome of the war. This distinction is critical in order to understand America’s predicament against Iran. Washington may have had concrete reasons to go to war, and it may ultimately achieve the objectives for which it went to war. But it does not absolve the victor from the responsibility of the destruction the victory brings forth.
This is where the Christian Realist view of the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr adds another dimension. For Niebuhr, political action must be undertaken under imperfect conditions, particularly because inaction may lead to grave injustices. Yet the nature of the action makes us realize that the exercise of power is not always innocent. Washington may have to face the burden of the victor: the same act of power that may prevent a greater evil can also create new forms of suffering and disorder. The moral challenge, therefore, is not simply to assert that victory is justified, but to acknowledge the consequences arising out of such a victory and assume responsibility for them.
