Kenneth Himes (2006) raises important theoretical questions about the continued relevance and moral adequacy of Just War doctrine. Yet one might ask whether these questions resonate in the same way at the practitioner level, particularly among those who bear the direct consequences of war: military personnel and civilian populations. The tension between moral theory and lived experience becomes especially visible when applied to contemporary conflicts.
Recent U.S. policy toward Iran offers a useful context for assessing these issues. Following the June 2025 escalation, which included Israeli strikes on Iranian military and security infrastructure and subsequent U.S. involvement through targeted bomber operations, the justification advanced centered on counter-proliferation, deterrence, and regional stability. These actions were framed as necessary responses to an urgent security threat after decades of failed diplomatic efforts, sanctions, and covert action.
Six months later, domestic unrest inside Iran has intensified, with large-scale protests met by severe state repression. Public statements by U.S. and Israeli leaders encouraging protesters and signaling support further complicated the moral landscape. This convergence of internal uprising and external military pressure raises a practical question that extends beyond theory: should the United States escalate toward full-scale war to halt nuclear expansion, regional destabilization, and missile proliferation, or continue diplomatic engagement that many view as cyclical and ineffective?
Several of Himes’s broader questions become particularly salient in this context. Does invoking “just war” reasoning risk legitimizing violence too readily? Does the framework itself make war appear morally manageable or strategically acceptable? An important question that has not yet been addressed is whether the nature of contemporary conflict requires a reassessment of what constitutes “war” in the first place.
In the Iranian case, the 2025 operations were characterized by precision strikes, advanced intelligence, and minimal ground involvement. If military objectives are narrowly defined, technologically targeted, and framed as preventive rather than expansionist, one might argue that traditional concerns about the doctrine legitimizing large-scale violence appear less directly applicable. Yet this raises another issue: whether technological precision meaningfully alters the moral threshold for using force or merely reshapes its appearance.
Similarly, the call to shift from “just war” toward “just peace” becomes complicated when decades of diplomatic initiatives, sanctions, and negotiated agreements have failed to produce durable de-escalation. In such circumstances, prioritizing peacebuilding can seem aspirational, even detached from strategic realities. However, dismissing peace-oriented frameworks entirely risks reinforcing a cycle in which military action becomes the default policy instrument.
Another of Himes’s concerns, humanitarian intervention, is equally difficult to assess in this case. He notes both the moral pull of intervening in extreme situations and the danger that humanitarian language may conceal geopolitical ambition. Reports of mass casualties during recent crackdowns raise profound moral questions about external responsibility. Yet political hesitation to label such repression as genocide illustrates how contested definitions and geopolitical interests shape moral judgment. The challenge, therefore, lies not only in determining whether intervention is justified but also in navigating the politicization of the very criteria used to justify it.
In sum, modern conflicts blur the line between war and limited force, between prevention and aggression, and between humanitarian concern and strategic interest. This blurring strains the traditional language of Just War without rendering it obsolete. Its continued relevance depends on whether its categories can be adapted to address preventive logic, precision warfare, and politicized humanitarian claims without normalizing violence.
Himes, Kenneth R. 2006. “Hard Questions About Just War.” America Magazine, October 30, 2006.