Credit…Iraqi Prime Minister Press Office, via Associated Press
“[B]ecause of our foreign policy of interventionism developed in the twentieth century, and because of our more recent policy of pre-emptive war, the United States has become the primary target of militant Muslims worldwide.”
- John W. Robbins “The Religious Wars of the 21st Century”
“U.S. Strike in Iraq Kills Qassim Suleimani, Commander of Iranian Forces,” ran the New York Times headline. Why did the US take this drastic action? The article’s subheadline explaines, “Suleimani was planning attacks on Americans across the region, leading to an airstrike in Baghdad, the Pentagon statement said.”
This explanation is not something made up by the New York Times. Rather, it is the same explanation given by official Washington for the deadly January 3 drone strike in Baghdad.
In his remarks from Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump, after asserting that his highest and most solemn duty was the defense of our nation, claimed that, “Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him…We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.”
PBS reports Secretary of State Mike Pompeo giving similar justification in an interview he did with CNN. According to PBS, Pompeo said that Gen. Qassem Soleimani “was actively plotting in the region to take actions, the big action as he described it, that would have put dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk. We know it was imminent. This was an intelligence-based assessment that drove our decision-making process.”
Reuters reported Pompeo’s remarks from January 3 thus, “last night was the time that we needed to strike to make sure that this imminent attack that he was working actively was disrupted.”
Finally, the National Review quoted Brian Hook, U.S. Special Representative for Iran, saying, “The President’s first responsibility is the safety of the American people. Qasem Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks in the region against Americans in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon that could have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people.”
One common thread that links all four quotes above is the word “imminent.” We are told by all three gentlemen that General Soleimani was not merely plotting to harm Americans, but that his attack or attacks were “imminent.” Therefore, they argue, the President’s decision to drone Soleimani – in his January 3 statement quoted above, President Trump said “Last night, at my direction, the United States military successfully executed a flawless precision strike” thus taking responsibility for the decision – ought not be viewed as an act of aggression, but rather as one of self-defense.
The term “imminent” is key to understanding the reasoning behind the killing of Soleimani as well as determining whether the President’s decision was a moral one. The reason “imminent” is such a key term relative to Soleimani’s death is that it’s the tip-off, the big tell, that this attack was carried out using the doctrine of preemptive war as the theoretical framework to justify the decision by the President to kill the Iranian general.
So what is the doctrine of preemptive war? Let’s take a look.
Preemptive War Theory
First, let’s start with defining preemptive war. Dictionary.com gives the following, “Preemptive war occurs when a state that is about to be attacked decides to strike first at its enemy and thus disrupt the impending attack. Unlike preventive war, in which a state strikes a potential enemy even during a time of relative peace (an action that is usually inadmissible under international law), a preemptive war takes place when a state is under the direct threat of imminent hostilities. Preemptive war is therefore a form of self-defense, and is generally accepted as a legitimate use of force under international law” (emphasis mine).
Encyclopedia Britannica says much the same thing, “Preemptive force, military doctrine whereby a state claims the right to launch an offensive on a potential enemy before that enemy has had the chance to carry out an attack.” Britannica goes on to note that, in order for the use of preemptive force (preemptive war) to be considered legitimate, “The attack has to come as a reaction to a perceived threat that is both absolutely credible and immediate” (emphasis mine).
These two definitions track very closely with the statements quoted above from the President, Mike Pompeo and Brian Hook. All three stated that Soleimani was plotting an imminent attack or attacks and framed his killing as an act of self-defense on the part of the U.S.
The Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defense
As further proof that President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Brian Hook all used the doctrine of preemptive war of justify the droning of Soleimani, I recommend reading the fascinating article “Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani,” by former British ambassador Craig Murray.
Murray begins, “In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.”
The Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence (hereafter the Bethlehem Doctrine), Murray tells us, is “the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade.”
In his critique of the killing of Soleimani, Murray raises the important point that the term “imminent” in the context of the Bethlehem Doctrine does not mean what you probably think it does. Writes Murray,
What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.
To Pompeo and others who accept the Bethlehem Doctrine’s definition of “imminent,” the term is something of a wax nose, which can be shaped into whatever form suits the needs of those who use it.
Murray continues, “When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning ‘imminent’ attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which ‘imminent’ is a ‘concept’ which means neither ‘soon’ nor ‘definitely going to happen’. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene.”
To further drive home the point that Trump administration officials are singing from the Bethlehem Doctrine’s hymnal, The Ron Paul Institute’s Daniel McAdams reported that Mike Pompeo went on the Laura Ingraham show and admitted that the neocon, preemptive war crowd uses “imminent” in a way other than its normal English usage. Said Pompeo, “We don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where (the attacks might take place), but it was real.”
McAdams went on to conclude,
But if you don’t know when and don’t know where (and presumably don’t know how), on what basis did Pompeo and the Trump Administration sell the idea that he had to be killed immediately lest untold numbers of Americans be killed?
And how can we believe Pompeo that Soleimani was behind the initial rocket attacks on an Iraqi base housing US troops, that a US contractor was killed by Soleimani’s forces at that base, and that Soleimani was behind the “attacks” (vandalism) on the US embassy in Baghdad?
In other words, if the central justification for the murder of Soleimani is an admitted lie, who in his right mind would believe the official version of the antecedents to the murder?
Pompeo’s moral reasoning would be terrible coming from anyone, regardless of his background. But Pompeo claims to be a Christian, which makes his overt lying and defense of what, in this author’s opinion, is murder that much worse.
What Saith the Scriptures?
As Scripturalism teaches, the Bible has a systematic monopoly on truth. This includes foreign policy truth. It may seem strange to 21st century people to hear that the Bible has anything at all to say about foreign policy, let alone that what it has to say is authoritative. But the revealed, propositional truth in the 66 Books of the Bible is the only source of truth men have, and this includes truth about foreign policy.
In the opinion of this author, the doctrine of preemptive war, specifically as formulated in the Bethlehem Doctrine, violates the law of God in a number of ways, thus placing it outside the pale of civilized international relations.
First, those who promote the Bethlehem Doctrine violate the Ninth Commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness. The Question 145 of the Westminster Larger Catechism asks, “What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?” Among the answers is “speaking the truth…in doubtful or equivocal expressions.” Surely, calling an attack “imminent” when you don’t know when or where it is going to come is a doubtful and equivocal expression.
Preemptive war also seems to necessarily involve a violation of the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not murder,” as well. Westminster Larger Catechism Question 136 reads, “What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?” Among sins listed are, “all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence.” Certainly, this seems to condemn the decision by Donald Trump to kill Soleimani. America was not and is not officially at war with Iran. America was not and is not officially at war with Iraq. Therefore, it is hard to see how Soleimani’s killing can be considered an act of lawful war.
But let’s look at this from another angle. What about the Golden Rule test? Jesus commands that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, for this is the law and the prophets. So, what if a foreign power applied the same principle of preemptive war to America as America did to Iran and Iraq? Imagine, for a moment, if the US sent a high official to Canada to discuss some diplomatic point and he was droned by the Russians or the Chinese. Suppose they said they did it because they had intelligence suggesting that the official represented an imminent threat to their national security but could not provide any specifics as to when or how the threat was going to materialize. Nearly all Americans would consider such an act murder and a just cause for war, regardless of what explanation was given by the Russian or Chinese government. Why would we expect the Iraqis or Iranians to react any differently?
A Christian Foreign Policy
What does a Christian foreign policy look like? Time does not permit a full answer here. But if one were to summarize, the two main principles of a Christian foreign policy are 1) treat others as you would like to be treated and 2) mind your own business.
President Millard Fillmore articulated these principles in his 1850 State of the Union address. He said,
Nations, like individuals in a state of nature, are equal and independent, possessing certain rights and owing certain duties to each other, arising from their necessary and unavoidable relations; which rights and duties there is no common human authority to protect and enforce. Still, they are rights and duties, binding in morals, in conscience, and in honor, although there is no tribunal to which an injured party can appeal but the disinterested judgment of mankind, and ultimately the arbitrament of the sword.
Among the acknowledged rights of nations is that which each possesses of establishing that form of government which it may deem most conducive to the happiness and prosperity of its own citizens, of changing that form as circumstances may require, and of managing its internal affairs according to its own will. The people of the United States claim this right for themselves, and they readily concede it to others. Hence it becomes an imperative duty not to interfere in the government or internal policy of other nations; and although we may sympathize with the unfortunate or the oppressed everywhere in their struggles for freedom, our principles forbid us from taking any part in such foreign contests. We make no wars to promote or to prevent successions to thrones, to maintain any theory of a balance of power, or to suppress the actual government which any country chooses to establish for itself. We instigate no revolutions, nor suffer any hostile military expeditions to be fitted out in the United States to invade the territory or provinces of a friendly nation. The great law of morality ought to have a national as well as a personal and individual application. We should act toward other nations as we wish them to act toward us, and justice and conscience should form the rule of conduct between governments, instead of mere power, self interest, or the desire of aggrandizement. To maintain a strict neutrality in foreign wars, to cultivate friendly relations, to reciprocate every noble and generous act, and to perform punctually and scrupulously every treaty obligation–these are the duties which we owe to other states, and by the performance of which we best entitle ourselves to like treatment from them; or, if that, in any case, be refused, we can enforce our own rights with justice and a clear conscience.
Fillmore was not alone in his thinking. If one reads what the Founding Fathers said about foreign policy, he will find that to a man they warned about the dangers of going abroad in search of monsters to destroy, forming entangling alliances and having passionate attachments to foreign nations.
It’s safe to say that had America maintained the former policy of its founders, the question of preemptive war never would have come up. But such was not to be. As John Robbins noted in “The Religious Wars of the 21st Century”, “The conservative movement in the United States has abandoned the American (and Biblical) foreign policy of strategic independence pursued by our government since 1776 for a policy of global interventionism that has angered many foreign nations and peoples, most recently the Muslims.”
And we are daily living with the consequences.
Closing Thoughts
I can’t say that this has been a particularly pleasant post to write. As an American and as a patriot, I’d rather speak well of my country than criticize it. Yet as a Christian, honesty compels me to speak out against the tissue of egregious lies being constructed by officials in Washington and propagated by the mainstream press.
One of the great challenges American Christians have is learning to apply Luther’s Schriftprinzip (writing principle) consistently, even when the results might hurt. So what is Luther’s Schriftprinzip? It is the idea that, “nothing except the divine words (of Scripture) are to be the first principles for Christians; all human words are conclusions drawn from them and must be brought back to them and approved by them.”
The Bible clearly supports America’s original, Christian foreign policy of strategic independence and condemns interventionism, empire and the pernicious doctrine of preemptive war.
As Christians, we must speak out against these evils, regardless of what president or what party is pushing them. To remain silent is to lend our approval to them. In which case we fail to be good Christians, and, for that matter, even good patriots.
Lux Lucet 
Leave a Reply