As someone born in the 1960s, I grew up during the Cold War. One of my earliest, clearest current affairs memories was the fall of Saigon to North Vietnam in 1975 and the helicopters taking off from the roof of the American embassy. The whole country then became united under a communist government.
In those days, almost everyone who followed current affairs had an opinion about the Cold War. In the struggle against the Soviet Union and the rest of the communist bloc, I was firmly on the side of America and the West. The West was no ‘white knight’ and often did very morally compromising things, such as supporting military dictatorships so long as they were anti-communist. But in the Cold War, unless you belonged to the revolutionary left, it seemed clear-cut that you should not have wanted the democratic countries of the West to be on the losing side.
Dominoes
When the Soviet Union finally fell in 1991, American military interventions around the world continued, nonetheless. In 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait, triggering an American and Western response. That was when the first George Bush was in the White House. Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait in short order. The liberation of Kuwait by force seemed justifiable.
But then, following the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001 by Al-Qaeda terrorists and the destruction of the Twin Towers, America and its allies decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq once and for all. They decided he had “weapons of mass destruction”, which could not be allowed to fall into Islamist terrorist hands.
To this day, organisations like Aid to the Church in Need help the remaining ones to stay there”
They also thought that if Saddam fell a new, democratic regime would take over and Iraq would become a good example to the rest of the region.
Well, there were no weapons of mass destruction (although I think people like Tony Blair, then the British Prime Minister, sincerely believed Iraq had them), and far from Iraq transforming into a peaceful, democratic country more or less overnight, it fell into anarchy, violence and chaos instead. Among other things, this led to the rise of ISIS and the widespread persecution of Iraqi Christians. Many fled the country, never to return. To this day, organisations like Aid to the Church in Need help the remaining ones to stay there.
Iran
The Iraq war totally cured me of a romantic, unrealistic belief that once a dictatorship was overthrown, something better would automatically emerge in its place. If Iraq hadn’t cured me, then the experiences of Afghanistan, Syria and Libya certainly would have. In each of those places, ‘regime change’ has totally failed to result in something that is definitely better than what was there before, as bad and all as that was.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban returned to power after 20 years. Relative peace and order, even under a dictatorship, is almost always better than violence and anarchy. It’s tragic this is the case, but it is simply the reality.
When Israel and America began bombing Iran on February 28, they did so with no clear aim”
Which brings me on to the war in Iran. By the time you are reading this, Trump may well have ordered the destruction of Iran’s electricity infrastructure, which would be a war crime. In a war you can attack the enemy’s infrastructure as a way of weakening the effectiveness of the enemy army (by hampering their ability to move around by railway, for example).
But destroying the entire electricity infrastructure would be a de facto attack on the civilian population lacking a sufficient military justification.
When Israel and America began bombing Iran on February 28, they did so with no clear aim. ‘Regime change’ was spoken about, but there is no sign yet of that happening, and even if that regime fell, why do we assume something good would replace it?
Justification
There has been talk of destroying Iran’s ability to ever build a nuclear weapon, or to launch long-range ballistic missiles. Those two-second goals are probably defensible, but how many weeks does it take to do this, and how much of Iran must be destroyed in order to achieve this purpose? At a certain point, things become grossly disproportionate.
Iran has responded by attacking its Arab neighbours, as well as Israel, and by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply passes. Trump wants to reopen the Strait, but won’t find it an easy task, even if he does destroy Iran’s electricity supply. This war could drag on and on with terrible, worldwide economic consequences.
We should be clear, of course, that the Iranian regime is one of the worst in the world and deserves to be destroyed, but not at any price.
Catholic just war theory sets out a number of criteria for when a war is just and justifiable. The Catechism set them out as follows: “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; – all other means of putting an end to it [the war] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; – there must be serious prospects of success; – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”.
Arguably, the war is even now producing greater evils than the evil to be eliminated”
I will look briefly at two of these criteria, the first being that “there must be serious prospects of success”. Given that America hasn’t even defined its war goals, the current war fails on this ground alone. What does success look like? President Trump can’t say.
The second one is that “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”. Arguably, the war is even now producing greater evils than the evil to be eliminated, not least the growing threat to the livelihood of poor people all over the world because of the energy crisis, plus the instability introduced into the Persian Gulf area itself.
Iran is a threat to peace, and it must be contained, which has been the Western strategy for decades backed by countries such as Saudi Arabia. Preventing Iran by force from acquiring nuclear weapons is probably justifiable on balance also. But seeking to eliminate the Iranian regime is producing greater evils than those produced by the regime itself.
Some of those around Trump are self-declared Christians, such as the Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, and they have the backing of some Christian leaders, which is hard to credit. Hegseth himself seems to glory in war and violence.
In calling for peace, Pope Leo is setting a much better Christian example, just as Pope John Paul did when the second Iraq war broke out in 2003.
People react at the site of a residential building in Tehran, Iran, on March 27, 2026, that was damaged by a strike amid the
US-Israeli war with Iran. Photo: OSV News / Majid Asgaripour, West Asia News Agency via Reuters.
Why I don’t believe in regime change
As someone born in the 1960s, I grew up during the Cold War. One of my earliest, clearest current affairs memories was the fall of Saigon to North Vietnam in 1975 and the helicopters taking off from the roof of the American embassy. The whole country then became united under a communist government.
In those days, almost everyone who followed current affairs had an opinion about the Cold War. In the struggle against the Soviet Union and the rest of the communist bloc, I was firmly on the side of America and the West. The West was no ‘white knight’ and often did very morally compromising things, such as supporting military dictatorships so long as they were anti-communist. But in the Cold War, unless you belonged to the revolutionary left, it seemed clear-cut that you should not have wanted the democratic countries of the West to be on the losing side.
Dominoes
When the Soviet Union finally fell in 1991, American military interventions around the world continued, nonetheless. In 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait, triggering an American and Western response. That was when the first George Bush was in the White House. Iraq was kicked out of Kuwait in short order. The liberation of Kuwait by force seemed justifiable.
But then, following the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001 by Al-Qaeda terrorists and the destruction of the Twin Towers, America and its allies decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq once and for all. They decided he had “weapons of mass destruction”, which could not be allowed to fall into Islamist terrorist hands.
They also thought that if Saddam fell a new, democratic regime would take over and Iraq would become a good example to the rest of the region.
Well, there were no weapons of mass destruction (although I think people like Tony Blair, then the British Prime Minister, sincerely believed Iraq had them), and far from Iraq transforming into a peaceful, democratic country more or less overnight, it fell into anarchy, violence and chaos instead. Among other things, this led to the rise of ISIS and the widespread persecution of Iraqi Christians. Many fled the country, never to return. To this day, organisations like Aid to the Church in Need help the remaining ones to stay there.
Iran
The Iraq war totally cured me of a romantic, unrealistic belief that once a dictatorship was overthrown, something better would automatically emerge in its place. If Iraq hadn’t cured me, then the experiences of Afghanistan, Syria and Libya certainly would have. In each of those places, ‘regime change’ has totally failed to result in something that is definitely better than what was there before, as bad and all as that was.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban returned to power after 20 years. Relative peace and order, even under a dictatorship, is almost always better than violence and anarchy. It’s tragic this is the case, but it is simply the reality.
Which brings me on to the war in Iran. By the time you are reading this, Trump may well have ordered the destruction of Iran’s electricity infrastructure, which would be a war crime. In a war you can attack the enemy’s infrastructure as a way of weakening the effectiveness of the enemy army (by hampering their ability to move around by railway, for example).
But destroying the entire electricity infrastructure would be a de facto attack on the civilian population lacking a sufficient military justification.
When Israel and America began bombing Iran on February 28, they did so with no clear aim. ‘Regime change’ was spoken about, but there is no sign yet of that happening, and even if that regime fell, why do we assume something good would replace it?
Justification
There has been talk of destroying Iran’s ability to ever build a nuclear weapon, or to launch long-range ballistic missiles. Those two-second goals are probably defensible, but how many weeks does it take to do this, and how much of Iran must be destroyed in order to achieve this purpose? At a certain point, things become grossly disproportionate.
Iran has responded by attacking its Arab neighbours, as well as Israel, and by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply passes. Trump wants to reopen the Strait, but won’t find it an easy task, even if he does destroy Iran’s electricity supply. This war could drag on and on with terrible, worldwide economic consequences.
We should be clear, of course, that the Iranian regime is one of the worst in the world and deserves to be destroyed, but not at any price.
Catholic just war theory sets out a number of criteria for when a war is just and justifiable. The Catechism set them out as follows: “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; – all other means of putting an end to it [the war] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; – there must be serious prospects of success; – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”.
I will look briefly at two of these criteria, the first being that “there must be serious prospects of success”. Given that America hasn’t even defined its war goals, the current war fails on this ground alone. What does success look like? President Trump can’t say.
The second one is that “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”. Arguably, the war is even now producing greater evils than the evil to be eliminated, not least the growing threat to the livelihood of poor people all over the world because of the energy crisis, plus the instability introduced into the Persian Gulf area itself.
Iran is a threat to peace, and it must be contained, which has been the Western strategy for decades backed by countries such as Saudi Arabia. Preventing Iran by force from acquiring nuclear weapons is probably justifiable on balance also. But seeking to eliminate the Iranian regime is producing greater evils than those produced by the regime itself.
Some of those around Trump are self-declared Christians, such as the Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, and they have the backing of some Christian leaders, which is hard to credit. Hegseth himself seems to glory in war and violence.
In calling for peace, Pope Leo is setting a much better Christian example, just as Pope John Paul did when the second Iraq war broke out in 2003.
Bishop McGuckian urges Belfast City hall to reconsider illumination in support of abortion
Songs of true love
Insightful words from an old friend
A highly suitable present: our Brendanian gift to President Trump
Top TOPICS
We have seen it so many times – a law gets liberalised to the extent
A woman drives a truck along a deserted road. There’s a dog in the middle
A return to the Church and a thank you to Irish clergy and friends Dear
You know the story, three times, on the shore of lake Galilee after the resurrection,