Seeking Peace, Seeking Justice: Iran and Syria

/3 Comments/in /by

The moral questions suggested by Syria and Iran are quite different in my view, and for that reason the moral considerations in each case are also different.    

While the Iranian situation may be the more dangerous of the two, it is the more familiar.  Using just war teaching, which is the tradition of theorizing about war found in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed churches, we could certainly make a case that self-defense, a prima facie just cause in just war theory, provides appropriate grounds for military action, particularly because of the nuclear danger, but also because of Iran’s demonstrated support for international terrorist organizations.  Note that a successful case will require a clear demonstration not only of Iran’s nuclear intentions but also of its ability to succeed in these ambitions.  In other words, just war theory requires more than a recognition that a regime or leader is evil; we need also to know that this evil poses a threat to international order.

Just cause, however, is not the only criterion that a military response must satisfy.  In this case, we might be especially interested in proportionality of ends (the good achieved by the use of the force must be greater than the harms done), reasonable hope of success, and last resort.  My own view is that the case for military action in Iran fails all three of these tests. In particular, I find it hard to conclude that a well-designed sanctions regime tied to rigorous international inspections will not be able to yield results. And when compared with the long-term negative consequences and the inherent difficulty of pursuing the military option in Iran, a stronger sanctions/inspection approach looks far more likely to move us towards improved relations in the region. 

In contrast, the situation in Syria is more difficult, albeit less dangerous for international order. The difficulty stems from the fact that our moral reflections with regard to armed humanitarian interventions into states are considerably less well developed than our reflections on war between states.  Since 1648 (the Peace of Westphalia), international norms of state sovereignty and non-intervention have persisted more or less without interruption, until very recently.  It’s not obvious how just war theory could be understood to apply to cases like Syria (or other recent cases, such as Libya) without considerable revision of the theory itself. 

What are some of the moral differences?  Well, it’s complicated.  Can just cause, for instance, be understood to include the punishment of evil such as we see in Syria today?  International law permits no such understanding: self-defense and collective security are the only just causes for war under international law.  What are the risks of broadening this justification?  Right intention is another just war criterion—the intent in a particular action must be in accord with the just cause and not for another cause.  Most armed interventions are not humanitarian—how are we to establish right motives in humanitarian interventions?  How are we even going to measure them?  So my first impulse with regard to the Syrian case is to appeal for more good theoretical work to be done on the matter of just humanitarian action.

Of course, my appeal for more theory will do little for policy-makers who must make decisions at a speed that makes theorists tremble.  And it particularly does nothing for those most affected : the Syrian people themselves.  So again I begin with just war theory.  Here, I’m particularly concerned about the prospects for success—the Syrian military poses a far greater challenge than was faced in Libya, for example.  Whether the good of the end is proportional to the harm that will result is also unclear, in my view.  I fully recognize my limitations in making those judgments.  But these criteria suggest to me that military intervention in Syria would be unwise.

On the question of expanding just cause to include the punishment of evils taking place entirely within states, the criterion of right authority may provide guidance.  The United Nation’s role as the institution capable of determining violations of collective security (its “Chapter 7” powers) may provide grounds for asserting its place as the “right authority” for justifying military intervention on humanitarian grounds.  I wonder also whether the UN might provide prudential checks against violation of other just war criteria as we consider intervention.  That might help resolve some of the concerns I noted above as we consider this revision of just war theory.

A final, and more personal, note.  I’m writing on Good Friday (yes, I’m late—apologies all around).  To think about state massacres, nuclear weapons and international terrorism on such a day as today is a reminder that Christianity is more than a theory or political commentary.  Christianity has at its center the story of man brutally tortured and killed by powers interested in maintaining their own power against a man challenging their authority.  The wonder, of course, is that in his defeat of those powers three days later, Jesus proclaimed the coming of a Kingdom based not on violence and war, but on something far more powerful.  

Just war theory is often said to have a bias for peace, and indeed this is so: it was designed to place limits on the ways that armies kill each other. (In fact, its seventh criterion is that a just war must aim at peace). But peace is not its only bias. The victory over death signifies a victory over oppression and violence and injustice.  Just war theory also contains a bias for justice: if we can act against injustice, we must act.  For it’s in the coming together of peace and justice that we discover the foundations of Christ’s new Kingdom.

The Cost of War

/0 Comments/in /by

One year after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s April 2011 crack down on civilian protests against his regime’s torture of students who had put up anti-government graffiti, the U.S. and the world are still figuring out what to do about it.

March 21 2012, the United Nations (UN) Security Council announced that it backed a six-point peace plan put forward by former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan. By March 27, Annan reported that al-Assad had accepted the cease-fire plan that will take effect April 10, 2012. But even as al-Assad met with Annan, reports of escalated crackdowns surfaced. Then on April 3 reports of military escalation in four major urban centers dashed hopes that al-Assad’s April 10 military withdrawal will actually take place.

And so the world waits for Tuesday, April 10. Then it will know what legitimate courses of action may come next. If al-Assad abides by the peace plan, then the world can exhale and allow peace to have its process. If not, then multiple questions step to the fore:  Will NATO intervene with military force or will the multi-lateral organization simply continue to supply the opposition forces with military supplies? Will the UN Security Council be able to overcome Russia and China’s entrenched economic ties to and military support of Syria? Will the U.S. engage in unilateral military intervention as Senator John McCain pressed for in his March 5, 2012 Senate speech?

These are questions of international law and diplomacy, but they are fundamentally moral and spiritual questions as well.

As I consider the options I am haunted by two separate conflicts, America’s choices for engagement, and the tolls those decisions took on millions of human lives.

We sat around a simple table, in a simple room, in a small Croatian town none of us had ever heard of. It was the summer of 2004.

On this day, in the first week of a one month pilgrimage through Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia, our evangelical delegation was hosted by the town council of Tenja (pronounced “Ten-ya”). A small agrarian town, Tenja is situated about 20 miles west of the Croatian/Serbian border. Shortly after Croatia declared its independence from the former Yugoslavia in 1990 Tenja was among the first Croatian towns to experience the wrath of former Yugoslavian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. This border town, which had previously enjoyed peaceful relations between Croats and Serbs quickly divided down ethnic lines. Croats fought for Croatia’s independence, while their Serb neighbors joined Milosevic’s Serbian army. What ensued was one year of brutal, unbridled ethnic conflict that targeted soldiers and civilians alike, engaged a program of systematic mass rape and destruction, and left in its wake landmines planted throughout Tenja’s farm fields to this day.

The town mayor and council members explained to our delegation how each was personally affected by the conflict that claimed more than 12,000 dead and missing Croatians in one year. They explained how they waited for someone—anyone—on the international stage to intervene and save them from a conflict we now know was the beginning of what would become the most deadly conflict in Europe since World War II. No one intervened—not NATO, not the UN Security Council—no one. The mayor of Tenja explained how he had hoped the United States would intervene, but we did not. And so, by January 1992 most of the residents of Tenja had lost fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, and neighbors.

The conflict ended when the international community finally did intervene in January 1992. After 15 attempts in six months, a UN sponsored cease-fire agreement finally worked. The European community finally recognized Croatia as a legitimate nation-state. And the UN Security Council finally adopted Resolution 743, which established the United Nations Protections Force (UNPROFOR) in the region to lay the groundwork for a peaceful political settlement between Croatia and Serbia.

I am haunted by Tenja.

I am also haunted by the memory of a more recent American intervention.

10:15pm on March 20, 2003 President George W. Bush addressed the nation to announce that 45 minutes before, he had ordered the beginning of air strikes within Iraq’s borders and the beginning of the second Iraq war, a conflict our military dubbed “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

International legal scholars have argued for and against the legality and legitimacy of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Most notably, the July 2003 exchange between John Yoo, who argued in favor of the war, and Thomas M. Franck, who argued against the war, in the American Journal of International Law, Volume 97, Agora: Future Implication of the Iraq Conflict.

Yoo argued that the war was legal because it was waged within the same legal framework that covered the U.S. during the first Iraq War, customary law justified intervention without UN approval, and U.S. belief that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) justified pre-emptive action.

Franck argued that UN Charter article 2(4) prohibits any state from taking first strike against another state without the express consent of the UN Security Council, except in cases where there is a direct, imminent threat against the state. The UN Security Council did not consent to America’s invasion of Iraq and WMDs were never found. Diplomatic means were not exhausted before the declaration of war. There was no direct threat to the U.S. or our interests in Iraq, thus our 9 year Iraq War was in violation of international law.

I agree with Franck. The war in Iraq was illegal, but this is not what haunts me most.

What haunts me most are the numbers mounted by this illegal conflict and the faces and lives they represent:

In America, it is a solemn event when even one soldier comes home in a body bag. Imagine the weight of grief and the enormous sense of loss the Iraqis must feel—110,600 civilian souls snuffed.

Now imagine how we could have used that $800 billion. Perhaps we could have used it to build more or better schools. Perhaps we could have used it to improve America’s health care system. Perhaps we could have used it to invest in job development and education that helps America’s poor rise into the working class. Perhaps… if only…

Perhaps the most regrettable thought is that, in the name of “freedom,” our illegal war served to constrict, destroy, and eliminate hundreds of thousands of images of God on earth.

The lessons I take from both Croatia and Iraq are these:

  1. Any action the U.S. takes to intervene in conflict waged within another nation-state’s borders must be with the express consent of the U.N. Security Council.
  2. Any action the U.S. takes to intervene in conflict waged within another nation-state’s borders must NOT be made with unilateral action. Multi-lateral action that utilizes the strength of institutions such as NATO, the Arab League, and the UN Security Council must utilized.
  3. Military action is always a last resort. Every possible means of diplomatic action must be taken before the threat of war is uttered.

War is not a slogan or a talking point. It is a mechanism of last resort within an international legal system that the United States helped to create. War always kills. It always destroys. It always diminishes capacity. It cannot build it. Ultimately, war threatens the image of God on earth. Thus talk of military intervention in Syria’s conflict must come only after all three conditions mentioned above are met. Then, perhaps it could be worth the cost.

 

The Limits of US Military Intervention

/3 Comments/in /by

The United States has real but not unlimited power to influence the course of events in other countries. Since World War II we have become increasingly accustomed to overestimating that power, and especially the efficacy of US military intervention around the world. Other nations are very much aware of our propensity to overuse military force, but we have not been willing to listen to criticism or alter our course substantially.

I chalk it up to a convergence of a longstanding messianic idealism in our national character, together with the peculiar circumstance both of having successfully deployed US military power twice in global wars and of maintaining for a very long time the largest and most powerful military in the world. We have believed that we are good and ought to pursue good in the world. We have believed in the effectiveness especially of our military efforts to bend the world in the direction we think it should go. And we have had both the financial resources and the military preeminence to pursue this path.

But recent years have shown the limits of our power and the increasing costs of attempting to exercise it. We invaded Iraq and have left behind much blood and treasure invested in a dubious, very partial democracy. We invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 and are somehow still engaged there in, if not a nation-building effort, somehow an Afghan police-and-military-building effort—which is only marred by the fact that they don’t want us there and the people we are training keep shooting at us. Meanwhile, our national debt rises as we borrow rather than tax to pay for our bloated military and our unscheduled but constant wars.

When we see the terrible pictures from Syria, it is natural to want to intervene. When we imagine Iran with a nuclear weapon, it is appealing to try to cut that regime off at the pass through some kind of military action—if that could somehow be effective, which is doubtful.

But I believe that this is a good moment for us to begin strengthening the skillfulness of our deployment of non-military means to exert influence and affect the behavior of other nations. Reports from Iran signal the effectiveness of the economic sanctions that are choking that regime. After being told so many times that sanctions can’t work, these reports come as a welcome surprise. While I do not rule out the legitimacy of the rare foray into military engagement, our nation needs to lead with diplomacy, coalition-building, economic investment or pressure, and moral example. Look at how China slowly builds up its position in the world and how they almost never threaten or use force as they do so. The time has come for us to learn a lesson from them, even while we recognize fundamental divergence in many values.

I do not believe we should intervene militarily either in Syria or Iran. I do believe we should join with many nations in providing humanitarian assistance in the former case and international isolation in the latter. In both cases we should keep lines of communication open even with regime leaders whose behavior is odious—not because we like them or endorse them, but because that is the best way to advance our own interests and the interests of the citizens of those nations. And in no case should our involvements in the Middle East be affected by speculative apocalyptic end-times scenarios or by a romanticized vision of the modern state of Israel.

 

 

 

Whistling Dixie in Tehran

/0 Comments/in /by

After spending some time studying recent  events in Iran and Syria I’m left feeling like I have very little to offer the conversation. These are issues of incredible complexity. It would be irresponsible to try to explain – much less critique – the historical, geographical, ethnic, theological, and political factors influencing America’s foreign policy towards these states. Instead, I want to say a word about naivete and the mistaken tendency of some Christians to avoid confrontation with evil.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an evil man. The president of Iran leads a regime that persecutes Christians and tortures women. He questions whether  the Holocaust occurred, and asks even if it did, so what? In a speech before the United Nations, Ahmadinejad claimed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were orchestrated by the U.S. government as a means to revive our economy while saving the “Zionist regime” (Israel). In an interview with George Stephanopolous, he said he believes Osama Bin Laden is living in Washington, D.C. thanks to the help of his friend George W. Bush. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly described his ambitions to exterminate Jews from Israel. In 2009, the Iranian people elected a new president, only to have their will denied. Protestors were met by the armed Islamic Revolutionary Guard and put down with violent authority.

In 2010, I attended the Association of Christians in Student Development (ACSD) annual conference held at Messiah College in Pennsylvania. One of the keynote speakers that year was David W. Shenk, a mennonite scholar and author of numerous books on Christian-Muslim dialogue. Shenk shared with us his experiences in this arena, highlighting a recent trip to Iran. He was invited to offer a paper at a conference and had been given the opportunity to speak to president Ahmadinejad, who was in attendance. Shenk used the opportunity to apologize – yes, apologize – to the president for president Bush’s failure to engage him in dialogue.

David Shenk, and those who share his pacifism, naively believe that men like Ahmadinejad can be reasoned with. They believe that if only Bush or Obama reciprocated the civility of Iran’s political leaders all this stuff about democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights, Israel’s right to existence, and the threat of nuclear war could be resolved over beers (err, tea) in the Rose Garden. 

The willingness not to see what one does not want to see is a dangerous game. In the 1930s, Dietrich Bonhoeffer exhorted his fellow Christians to open their eyes to the threat of Hitler. They refused to see what they did not want to believe. Later, after millions of Jews, Gypsies, disabled persons, and dissidents were slaugtered, some regretted their ambivalence.

Earlier today I received a copy of “Letters from a Birmingham Jail” courtesy of Trinity Forum. In it, Martin Luther King asks his fellow pastors to get involved in the fight for racial justice in America. His was a non-violent effort, but a movement that went far beyond mere dialogue. King called for and organized acts of civil disobedience and protest. He and his allies suffered for it. I believe they would have found much in common with the “Green Revolution” in Iran.

I don’t know what the United States or our allies should do to confront Iran. I don’t want the best way forward in Syria (or Pakistan, Russia, France, or Canada for that matter). What is clear is the necessity to be shrewd in our assessment of political leaders and their plans. Hoping for the best is not a strategy. Blithely disregarding warning signs of evil and instability will only lead to suffering and death. The United States is a leader with unparalled influence. Our burden is to stand for what is good and combat what is evil, one way or another.

 

Complex Problems Without Simple Solutions

/15 Comments/in /by

The crisis in Syria and concerns about Iran developing nuclear weapons are multi-faceted and incredibly complex issues. Outsiders like me (and likely most people following this conversation) have limited access to information about these situations and thus see only small pieces of a much larger, intricate puzzle.  After a brief discussion of why foreign policy is so important when deciding how to vote for president, I will offer a few observations about possible paths to follow in addressing the situations in Syria and Iran.

Foreign Policy and Choosing a President

The oft-quoted description of the U.S. President as the “most powerful person on earth” may tend toward hyperbole, but the president does indeed wield significant power over issues that affect thousands, millions, and even hundreds of millions of lives. Presidential decisions matter. Lives can and do hang in the balance.

As voters evaluate presidential candidates, they should consider the powers and duties of the office, paying particular attention to those actions and decisions a president ultimately decides alone.

International affairs is one of these key policy areas where the president has great freedom to take independent action. The president serves as chief diplomat, interacting directly with other foreign leaders, and he sets the tone and issues directives for the State Department as they pursue diplomatic efforts around the globe. Although Congress technically has the sole power to declare war, in modern practice, the president has initiated most military actions by committing troops and issuing orders for military strikes.

Some foreign policy concerns span several decades and develop over many years, vexing Democratic and Republican administrations alike. But many, and sometimes most, of the foreign policy dilemmas that arise during a president’s term are unexpected. As I have expressed in more detail elsewhere, even the most thorough campaign cannot address all of the possible issues a president will face. We cannot know exactly when, where, and what will happen in our own country or abroad. Presidents often face complex foreign policy realties that leave them few, if any, good options. In presidential elections, we should seek a leader whom we find most trustworthy to make wise decisions in the midst of great uncertainty.

Syria: An Unexpected Crisis with No Easy Solutions

The Syrian case is an excellent example of an unexpected international crisis. Even respected scholars were taken by surprise; eighteen months ago, no one was predicting a Syrian uprising that would leave thousands dead and Assad refusing to cede power.

I will defer to those with greater knowledge to offer more specific policy prescriptions.

From my understanding of the current conflict in Syria, the United States has few, if any, viable options for a unilateral response. Experts generally agree that the extensive complexity on the ground precludes most military options. The Syrian opposition movement has been severely fractured and is only recently beginning to unify; it is unclear how or if we should support them. Some reports, for example, suggest possible links between some of the rebels and Al Qaeda. The U.S. has already imposed significant sanctions against Syria without much success, and diplomatic efforts thus far have failed.

The international community has possible options it might pursue, but few offer much promise for establishing peaceful order. The peace plan Kofi Anan recently negotiated looks promising, but it has to begin with a cease fire. It is hard to imagine Assad easily or willingly ceding his power. His violent response to the uprisings and retaliation against his own people has essentially backed him into a corner. At this point, he has little to gain from negotiations, and opposition leaders and the families of victims are unlikely to accept anything short of Assad’s removal. Meanwhile Assad has overwhelming firepower and maintains control of key leadership sectors in Syria.

As is often the case with international issues, the situation in Syria is incredibly complex, and no good solutions are readily apparent. The United States, the Arab League, the United Nations and others should continue seeking solutions and pursuing diplomacy, but we should not expect a quick and easy end to this crisis.

Iran: An Ongoing, Bipartisan Concern

The situation in Iran is a good example of an ongoing international issue that transcends party differences. Democrats and Republicans agree that the world will be less safe if Iran develops nuclear weapons. Iran refuses to allow inspections, so we are uncertain about the status of their weapons program. Intelligence reports vary. The Israelis are publicly raising concerns that the timeframe is short; other countries estimate Iran may be a few years away from nuclear weapons. Analysts are also unsure if Iran will actually build the weapons or if they will stop short of declaring themselves a nuclear power.

What are some of the possible options for U.S. policy? 

First, we could engage in more direct diplomacy and hope that those efforts combined with increased sanctions result in Iran allowing inspectors into their sites.

Second, the United States could initiate some sort of limited military action. An air strike may or may not be effective; successful strikes might set a weapons program back 2 or 3 years. Military strikes could have significant fallout, and depending on the way and level to which Iran responded, the action could lead to a wider regional war.

Third, we need to assess if we can live with a nuclear Iran. Although this is not the preferred scenario, building a bomb does not automatically lead to using it. Some strategy for containment might be possible.

Seeking a Christian Response

The situations in Syria and Iran raise complex and troubling questions political leaders must address. But how can ordinary Christians like us respond? With no access to essential intelligence and only limited information from the news media, how can we make sense of such vexing problems?

We can start by admitting that we can’t fully understand the depth and complexity of these issues nor can we easily predict outcomes of the array of possible responses governments may pursue. If we suggest actions or make foreign policy recommendations, we should do so with caution and caveats.

We can all act with great confidence and boldness, however, in bringing the conflict in Syria and the potential threat from Iran to God in prayer. We can pray for peaceful solutions to such complex problems, we can intercede on behalf of those affected by conflict, and we can pray for wisdom for the men and women who gather information, propose alternatives, and make difficult decisions that affect so many lives.

The Challenge of Syria and Iran to Christian Peacemakers

/0 Comments/in /by

                  “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

Topic #4: Syria and Iran

/0 Comments/in /by

Please consider the following potential leading questions

 

#1: What role, if any, should the United States and the rest of the international community play in the current conflict in Syria?

 

#2: In what way, if any, should the United States respond to the potential for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and the threat of Israel to attack facilities in Iran believed to be contributing to such development?

 

#3: How serious would be a nuclear-armed Iran? Is containment, as was practiced for many years in the case of the Soviet Union, a viable policy option?

 

#4: To what extent should the United States rely on military action, “negotiation” and/or sanctions in resolving the Syrian and Iranian situations? Should the “all the options on the table” include the possibility of military action by the United States or other governments in the international community? Or should the United States leave the resolution to conflicts in Syria and Iran to these countries?

 

#5: How should a Christian’s understanding of “biblical prophecy” about the “end times” influence, or not, his/her perspective on current conflicts in the Middle East?