U.S. Military Response 'Should Be off the Table'

A pre-emptive military response aimed at thwarting Iranian nuclear ambitions “should be off the table,” said Gerald Powers, director of Catholic peacebuilding studies at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. Powers was responding to a report released on Nov. 8 by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, that expressed “serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.” According to the report, “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.” The report concludes that “prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured program, and that some activities may still be ongoing.”

Powers argues, however, that even if Iran has been pursuing nuclear capability, a military response meant to set that effort back would lead only to more instability in an already troubled region of the world. He said the “muted” U.S. response so far to the revelations contained in the new I.A.E.A. report was appropriate. “We have to be clear that the use of military force against Iran should be off the table—period,” said Powers, who called that response neither morally nor legally justifiable.

Advertisement

“The prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons is deeply troubling,” said Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany, N.Y., chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Office of International Justice and Peace. “Iran has threatened its neighbors, especially Israel, and contributes to the widespread instability of the region.” But, Bishop Hubbard added, “recent news accounts speculating on the possible use of force against Iran are also troubling.”

“From a moral perspective,” he said, “in the absence of an immediate threat to attack others, military action against Iran would constitute an act of preventive war, which raises serious moral questions.”

Powers was most concerned about the international “norm” that a pre-emptive strike aimed at nonproliferation would establish. “To say that counter-proliferation efforts should include the use of preventive military force would represent a major departure from moral norms on the use of force.” Where is the just cause? Powers asked, when an attack is planned based on a suspicion that a nation is developing nuclear capability, and what kind of precedent would that create? Other nations, he argued, could apply the same logic to their regional adversaries—Iran against Israel, South Korea versus North Korea, for example. “That’s a formula for enormous instability,” said Powers.

According to Powers, both the United States and Israel have credibility problems related to nonproliferation. The United States has already acquiesced to the development of nuclear weapons in India and has never disavowed a first-strike nuclear option even to a nonnuclear threat. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1970 and is believed to maintain a significant nuclear stockpile itself.

Iran, Powers said, is a “tough regime, but the tough regimes are usually the ones you have to deal with the most.... The United States has to be open to diplomacy as part of the package. It can’t be all sticks; there have to be some carrots.”

However the United States proceeds in its relationship with Iran, Powers said that as a sovereign power, Israel is within its rights to defend itself as it sees fit. But, he said, a military strike would probably not succeed in diminishing Iran’s program. He pointed out that components of the nuclear effort appear to be scattered throughout the country and that an attack would not likely improve Israeli security. The military option might, in fact, encourage Iran to accelerate its nuclear weapons program. Worse, of course, Powers said, is the possibility that an attack could lead to another widespread war in the Middle East.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.

Advertisement

The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018