The Iran situation asks questions not merely of the US Constitution, but of the universal theory of a just war, which is the only premise upon which Christians are meant to engage in wars: these are the standards even American Christians are meant to follow.
The key question in the just war argument in this case is, was the warlike act done for a good and just reason, a common good, or was it done for personal gain? If the former, it passes the Thomas Aquinas smell test. If the latter, it reeks.
For myself, I think the evidence suggests the latter, while it is clothed as if it was the former. The ostensible reason is an imminent threat. The underlying reasons were Trump's desire for vengeance and his need for a distraction from impeachment.
But I am not going to be too precious in this situation, as it is a morally and politically complicated situation. I don't like an assassination policy. But this was a bad actor who killed people himself: killing him saved others. The law protects us all, but this was a man hiding under the mantle of the law to do bad things: a law that protects villains needs to be set aside. Iran is a sovereign nation but it does sponsor terrorism overseas: we don't need to respect its sovereign status if it uses it to damage its neighbours. The US president may not have acted with just intent, but in spite of this, the benefits may outweigh the costs.
Iran isn't worth a war, but it does need to know it cannot act as if there are no consequences to its actions. With luck, this is the principal outcome: that in future, Iran thinks twice before engaging in violent conduct.
| 