Ending the War Against Iran and the Cycle of Resorting to Military Action

The war in Iran is widely unpopular, but individuals, congregations, and organizations committed to social justice can do more to voice their opposition by acting collectively and proposing alternatives to solving international differences by military force. Although national faith leaders and many denominations have raised moral issues to oppose this war, many local congregations In Western North Carolina have been reluctant to oppose the war in Iran. An exception is Trinity Presbyterian Church. It publicly supports the position of the Presbyterian Church (USA), which states

“bombs do not create democracy, and airstrikes do not build just societies”

and urges support for nation-level actions.

Framing reasons to oppose the war within the moral imperative of seeking peace, rather than war, can lend power to efforts to find a better way for this country to conduct itself in the world. Statements by Pope Leo XIV and national faith leaders, such as Rev. William Barber II, are starting points, A column by David French, “There Is Much More to Pope vs. President Than Meets the Eye,” in the April 23^rd New York Times, grounds the Pope’s statements in Just War doctrine, which originated with Thomas Aquinas. This column is worth discussing in congregational forums. In addition, Jim Wallis and Sojourner magazine have applied Just War doctrine to today’s conditions.

Authors in Just Peacemaking: The New Paradigm for the Ethics of Peace and War, edited by Glen H Stassen propose it as an alternative to established positions of Just War doctrine and pacifism as another Christian-based model. They apply Just Peacekeeping to current issues of international violence and describe ten peacekeeping practices for individuals and organizations to consider.

Reasons to oppose the war

Loss of human lives is a primary reason to oppose or question this, and any, war. Our military has become proficient at limiting the loss of American lives. As of April 25^th, 13 American service members have been killed, more in neighboring countries than in Iran. and 300 to 400 wounded. Thus far, 1492 civilian Iranians deaths have been documented and the Associated Press reports a total of 1900 deaths (though the military has questioned this statistic). The toll on service members, however, will continue after they leave the war; the pilot and others responsible for bombing the Iranian school may wake up in the night hearing children’s screams.

The waste of our resources in a war without coherent and consistent objectives is another reason to oppose this war. A report in The Times, also on April 23^rd, found:

“The military has fired off more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles, roughly 10 times the number it currently buys each year. The Pentagon used more than 1,200 Patriot interceptor missiles in the war, at … $4 million [each], and more than 1,000 … ground-based missiles, leaving inventories worrisomely low.”

Supplies to deter adversaries such as Russia and China were used against Iran, reducing our capacity to provide for our national security. A full debate about our true defense needs is necessary before additional funds for the military are approved.

Objections to further expanding the defense budget at the expense of established social service programs can be related to Jesus’s teachings to care for the least of these.  Clearly, federal programs to address basic needs basic needs, including healthcare, education, and better housing, among others, would suffer.

A third reason to oppose to war, which  affects all of us, is the rising cost of food and energy caused by the war. Farmers must account for the increasing cost of fertilizer, which will further drive up the cost of food. Travel in Europe is complicated by flights canceled because of fuel shortages. Apparently, the commander-in-chief did not heed warnings that Iran likely would close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for our bombing campaign.

According to The Times of April 30^th,

“The war with Iran is almost certainly illegal: Congress hasn’t declared war or authorized it by statute, and it wasn’t precipitated by an imminent attack or a national emergency.”

Strategic errors form a final set of reasons to oppose this war. The rising cost of oil, for example, has benefited Vladimir Putin in his war against Ukraine. Our single-handed approach to defeating Iran has alienated NATO allies. The president claims he did not know that the alliance declared that the attacks of 9/11/2001 on the United States were an attack on all members, the first time that Article V was invoked.

An article by Wesley Granberg-Michaelson in the April 9^th issue of Sojourners concludes by saying

In this time of moral catastrophe, the voice of faith must break through all the diplomatic consternation and political speculation. Trusting in the ways of annihilation, vengeance, and war brings a harvest of death, not just to its victims but ultimately to its perpetrators and their empires. Embracing the pathways of life, even through pain and suffering, will break the seal of any empire, confound its leaders, and reveal that love is victorious over the reign of sin, evil, and death. Even today.

Local and national leaders must encourage open discussions, acknowledge differences, and strive to form coalitions to convey concerns to local and national decision-makers and the general public.

Actions to take

The need to act is urgent. While the war against Iran currently is in limbo, the administration apparently is considering using military force against Cuba and American forces are poised to act against Iran.

The basic toolkit of actions to take has not changed, with the exception of expanding a presence on social media.

• We must continue to write letters to the editors of local newspapers, contact our elected representatives, and join public demonstrations. In addition, faith communities could consider supporting William Barber’s Moral Monday movement. Our voices would be strengthened if we and organizations to which we belong act collaboratively. Rather than a church submitting a letter to the editor or a Member of Congress, church leaders could seek others to add their names.
  

• Congregations must define a boundary between their role of raising social justice issues based on their religious teachings, as opposed to direct political involvement with the understanding that members of the congregation make their own political decisions. A one-page checklist published by Democracy NC before the 2024 election is a helpful guide. This and other materials referred to here may be requested from the email address at the end of this statement.
  

• Congregations and organizations need to conduct forums where these issues would be discussed, which could start with a statement from their denomination, if one is available. The goals would be to educate church members, stimulate discussion, and give them a sense that they can make a difference. Pastors or other church leaders could state that no decision to act will be unanimous and ask those who disagree to respect a decision that is grounded in statements from the denomination and religious teachings.
  

• Coordinated contacts with elected officials and candidates are crucial, though some churches  and church members may see this as political. At least, churches could print names and addresses and allow members to respond. Representatives’ priorities could be determined to aid in advocating ending the war.

Inevitably, the decision remains for individuals to decide whether to become involved politically. Some may focus on statements by the Secretary of Defense, who prides himself as a “Secretary of War” and asks Jesus to bless those who kill Iranians whom he considers as our enemies.

• To maintain the boundary with political involvement, a congregation could ask those directly involved with a political party or campaign to meet outside of church functions when discussing these political issues.

It is time for congregations to consider asking candidates, elected officials, and political parties for their position on ending the war and promoting peaceful resolution of international differences to inform church members.

Congregations and organizations with a foundation of promoting social justice need to determine whether ending the war is a priority, and begin by directing their righteous anger toward injustices represented by this war. They need to collaborate with each other to break the cycle of relying upon military force to resolve difficult international differences and also insist that this country cannot stand alone against threats to our mutual security.

Submitted by Robert Miles

With assistance from Paul Weichselbaum and Chris Berg