War stands as the most devastating sequence of actions any government can undertake. It represents a systematic, mechanized, and indiscriminate slaughter. Innocent civilians, including women and children, fall victim to it. Often, those who carry out the violence suffer lifelong consequences. It is a clash where youthful soldiers confront the ambitions of older leaders. War reflects the very condition of the state.
The conflict President Donald Trump has initiated against Iran’s nation and populace is both unethical and illegal under constitutional standards. Yet, with Congress neglecting its duties, resolution remains distant until Trump manages to find a way to publicly undo this serious error without losing face.
An action by an individual or government is judged moral when it aligns with universal principles meant to promote good over evil and justice over wrongdoing. These principles are accessible through reason exercised by rational adults, who are expected to adhere to them. Even children often recognize these standards.
When natural rights of others are infringed upon, lawful or not, the behavior is immoral. Laws that protect natural rights are just and valid. Conversely, laws that violate these rights—such as those punishing speech, seizing property, restricting movement, or spying on private activities—are themselves immoral.
Government is a man-made institution established by monopolizing power within defined boundaries. It lacks conscience or free will. In a liberal democracy, it can only act morally when it is explicitly authorized to do so by the people it governs.
Thomas Jefferson articulated in the Declaration of Independence that legitimate government derives its “just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” Thus, when a government wields powers without such consent, these powers are unjust and their application immoral.
Can people grant their government immoral authority? Indeed, they can. If a population consents to a war initiated not on defensive grounds but fueled by collective animosity toward the ethnicity, religion, or race of another nation’s people, such a war is immoral. This is because harm inflicted without defense is wrong, and targeting based on immutable traits is also unethical, regardless of consent.
This philosophical framework serves to examine the ethics of Trump’s war. When deploying lethal force, governments bear a demanding obligation: they must present facts subject to public evaluation proving the immediate necessity to kill individuals who are not actively hostile.
The current administration has failed to meet this standard.
For war to be justified, the problem it addresses must be clear and significant; the anticipated good must morally outweigh the cause of the conflict and be realistically achievable.
The authority declaring war must be legitimate, its aims explicitly defined and achievable, and the damage inflicted proportionate to the evil targeted.
None of these criteria are satisfied in Trump’s campaign against Iran. He has not specified a moral purpose. Attempting to eliminate Iran’s nuclear arms does not qualify, especially since mere possession and non-use of these weapons—denied even to exist last June by Trump—are not immoral; only their use would be.
Possession alone cannot justify invasion, especially since states like the U.S. and Israel also hold nuclear weapons (the U.S. having used them, Israel has not).
At the conflict’s onset, Trump promised the Iranian public that he would assist them in “take over your government. It will be yours to take.” This indicates an aggressive war, not one of defense.
Was this conflict declared by lawful authority sanctioned by the American people? It was not. The Constitution empowers only Congress to define enemies and declare war. Here, the president initiated hostilities unilaterally without congressional approval.
Neither the president nor senior officials from State, Defense, or Intelligence have demonstrated that Iran poses an immediate threat to the U.S.
What justification remains? Iran lacks nuclear weapons, and its missiles cannot reach U.S. territory. Meanwhile, North Korea possesses nuclear arms and missiles capable of striking Hawaii and California, led by an unpredictable tyrant. Could North Korea be targeted next?
Just two weeks ago, the top counterterrorism official under Trump, privy to the same classified intelligence as the president’s advisors, declared in his resignation that Iran does not present an immediate threat. The director of national intelligence refused to confirm under oath such a threat.
What accounts for this?
This situation echoes James Madison’s caution. He insisted on separating the powers to declare and conduct war, as established by the Constitution, fearing that if one person held both, that individual would become a monarch, akin to the ruler the colonists rebelled against. What value remains in a Constitution dishonored by those sworn to uphold it?
Original article: www.creators.com
About the Author
