The Challenge of Syria and Iran to Christian Peacemakers

                  “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” Matt. 5:9

Both Syria and Iran one are evil regimes that are prone to the use of violence against their own citizens and in relations with other countries.  Iran has supported terrorists abroad, its president, Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, and all indications are it is working to develop nuclear weapons.  Syria is led by Bashar al-Assad, a ruthless dictator who is using indiscriminate violence to put down a year-long citizen’s challenge to his rule.  

Let no one underestimate the international and humanitarian threats these two regimes pose.  In the case of Syria, ought the West and other Arab countries to sit idly by as a brutal regime slaughters its own citizens who have bravely risen up against it?  In the case of Iran if it were to gain nuclear weapons three immediate dangers to peace and regional stability would emerge.  First, it would pose an immediate threat to Israel, since Iranian missiles can reach that country.  Would Iran follow through on its threat to wipe Israel off the map?  Probably not, given Israel’s ability to retaliate with its own nuclear weapons.  But one cannot be sure, and the results would be so horrendous if the threat were carried out that blocking Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is a goal to which all peacemakers should aspire. 

Second, Iran is known to sponsor international terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah which aspires to terrorist activities in the Middle East, Europe, and the United States.   A nuclear-armed Iran could become bolder in its support of international terrorist activities. Third, if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, other Middle Eastern countries, such as Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, are likely to conclude their national interest requires them to do so as well.  A nuclear arms race in an unstable part of the work would be a large step forward in releasing the nuclear proliferation genie on the world. 

In reacting to situations such as those posed by Syria and Iran, an underlying perspective to which the Christian faith leads is that in a sinful, broken world there are always going to be dangers, threats, and injustices.  There will be “wars and rumors of war” until Christ returns in power (Matt. 24:6).  Often the calls for military action by the United States have a hidden Enlightenment-inspired assumption that human beings are essentially good, and if only an especially evil regime can be eliminated peace and good-will will reign among nations.  Christians know better.  We surely should work for greater peace and greater justice among nations—and sometimes God will bless those efforts with success—but threats and injustices ought to be seen as a frequent consequence of a world no longer as it is supposed to be. Our goal as a nation ought not to be to create a utopian world where evil regimes no longer exist and international threats are a thing of the past.  This would lead to a never ending stream of wars and bombing campaigns as we seek to right wrongs around the world. 

Instead, Christian realism favors traditional just war theory as a means of avoiding a quick recourse to military action.  It insists that before military action is taken the cause itself must be just, the military action must be taken under the auspices of legitimate authority, there must be the probability of success, and it must be used only when all other options have been exhausted. 

It must also be remembered that in seeking to be peacemakers and justice-promoters in the world the United States has more sources of power than military force.  There is the soft power of humanitarian assistance, the example of freedom and democratic ideals, and cultural and economic ties.  There is the hard power of economic sanctions and pressures, and only finally there is the hard power of military force.

With all this as background it is difficult to justify military action in the Syrian situation.  Legitimate authority to intervene militarily in an internal rebellion is lacking. The probably of success can be questioned, given the relative sophistication of the Syrian military and its continuing loyalty to Assad.  The humanitarian outrage being perpetratred, however, argues for actions short of military intervention.  There is the soft power of humanitarian assistance and upholding the ideals of democratic freedom.  There is also the hard power of economic sanctions and pressures.  These are beginning to be pursued by the United States and other countries and they, not military force, seem to me to be the correct responses.

The situation in regard to Iran, when compared to Syria, poses greater dangers and the case for military intervention is greater.  But here also I believe military action should not be taken.  Military experts are agreed that bombing suspected nuclear weapons development sites would not involve a single, surgical strike, but a long-lasting bombing campaign with large civilian casualties.  Such actions would likely solidify popular support for the regime, a regime whose popular support has at times been shaky.  And internal unhappiness with the regime and changes from within may offer the likeliest chance of stopping the development of nuclear weapons. Here the United States’ soft power may be more effective than the hard power of military action.  Economic sanctions are beginning to have an impact on Iran, and further sanctions, which are only beginning to have an effect, have the potential of having even a bigger impact.    

If worse comes to worse and Iran does develop nuclear weapons, it is far from clear that containment and a nuclear standoff with Israel and the United States would not work.  Such a standoff between the United States and the old Soviet Union for some 40 years did not lead to nuclear war.  Such a standoff is far from ideal and must grieve any person committed to Christ’s call to be peacemakers.  But in an imperfect, broken world prudence suggests it is a lesser evil than military action by the United States that would surely result in many human deaths and injuries.  And success in forestalling Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would still be far from certain.

The great power given the United States should be used to promote peace and greater justice in a world often prone to war and injustice.  But Christian peacemakers must resist the quick resort to military means to solve international threats and injustices.  It truly should be a last resort. 

 Stephen V. Monsma