Things I Wish My Family Knew

USA non-lethal bombing of Iran Nuclear Facilities a Morally necessary action.

I. Introduction

This reflection addresses the moral and theological reasoning behind three related positions: (1) why the United States’ recent non-lethal strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is justified, (2) why a similar strike on North Korea would not be morally equivalent, and (3) why the U.S. bears no overriding moral obligation to support Ukraine’s defense—especially in light of Europe’s inconsistent involvement and the United States’ pressing domestic stewardship responsibilities.

II. Iran vs. North Korea: Moral Distinctions in Military Engagement

While both Iran and North Korea pose significant threats, the moral calculus for a U.S. preemptive strike differs due to proportionality and collateral risk. The U.S. non-lethal strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was:
– Precisely targeted,
– Designed to prevent weapons development,
– Executed without loss of life,
– Intended to prevent regional instability and protect allies.

North Korea, though threatening, presents a different scenario:
– Its military assets are embedded near densely populated civilian areas, especially Seoul,
– Any preemptive strike could trigger catastrophic retaliation,
– Civilian casualties could number in the millions.

Thus, a strike against North Korea—while morally conceivable in terms of just cause—fails the tests of proportionality and discrimination. The restraint shown reflects the wisdom modeled in Jesus’ Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:24–30), where premature uprooting of evil is avoided to protect the innocent.

III. The U.S. and the Ukraine Conflict: A Reassessment of Moral Obligation

Although Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is morally reprehensible, the U.S. does not bear a unique or primary obligation to intervene financially or militarily. Europe, by contrast, has both a geographic and cultural proximity that imposes a greater moral responsibility. Yet, Europe has:
– Contributed far less proportionally than the U.S. to Ukraine’s defense,
– Continued to purchase Russian oil and gas, thus indirectly funding the war against Ukraine,
– Advocated for greater American aid while avoiding comparable sacrifice themselves.

This inconsistency undermines Europe’s moral credibility and shifts an undue burden onto American citizens.

IV. Constitutional Duty and Fiscal Stewardship: The Federal Government’s Primary Obligation to Its Citizens

The fundamental role of the federal government, as derived from the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by longstanding political philosophy, is to:
– Provide for the common defense,
– Ensure domestic tranquility,
– Promote the general welfare, and
– Secure the blessings of liberty to its citizens and their posterity (U.S. Constitution, Preamble).

This duty is directed explicitly toward the citizenry—those who are either born under the jurisdiction of the United States or have been lawfully naturalized into its constitutional framework. The government is not entrusted with an equal obligation to non-citizens, particularly those who reside in the country unlawfully, having entered or remained in violation of federal immigration law.

To act otherwise is to subvert the very laws and principles the government is sworn to uphold, undermining both the rule of law and the social contract that binds the citizenry together.

It is often argued that the United States, as the world’s wealthiest nation, has the financial capacity to alleviate global suffering and support democratic allies. While this may appear true on paper, it fails to recognize a critical and often ignored fact: the U.S. does not fund its international commitments out of surplus, but through debt.

Every dollar sent abroad—whether in foreign aid, military support, or humanitarian relief—is not drawn from a storehouse of excess, but is borrowed against the future of American citizens, increasing a national debt now exceeding $34 trillion. In reality, the U.S. government is not acting from abundance, but from obligation—obligating future generations to repay loans incurred for foreign purposes, many of which fall outside the scope of its constitutional mandate.

While the world is full of legitimate needs, the ability to address them does not equate to a moral responsibility when the cost is borne by citizens through:
– Greater inflation and diminished purchasing power,
– Higher taxes and slower economic growth,
– Reduced funding for essential domestic services,
– Unsustainable interest payments that consume future budgets.

Thus, what may appear as generosity is often a deferred burden. The federal government, acting as steward of the public treasury, must recognize that its first duty is to use its financial authority for the direct benefit of its citizens, not to underwrite the responsibilities of other nations, particularly when those nations (such as EU member states) fail to act with equal or greater resolve.

To finance global obligations while neglecting domestic solvency is not compassion—it is fiscal negligence wrapped in moral pretense.

America cannot—and must not—try to be the world’s provider at the expense of its own fiscal future, particularly when the financial “generosity” extended abroad is paid for through borrowed money that citizens, not global beneficiaries, are bound to repay.

V. Conclusion: Toward Moral Clarity in Foreign Engagement

Throughout this discussion, we have explored the moral rationale for when the United States may be justified in taking action abroad—and when it is not. We’ve distinguished the targeted and non-lethal strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure from the more perilous consequences of military action against North Korea, highlighting the importance of prudence, proportionality, and protection of the innocent.

We have examined the case of Ukraine, concluding that while its cause may be just, the burden of aid rightly falls on Europe as the more proximate and culturally bound stakeholder. The United States, in contrast, bears a greater moral responsibility to its own citizens, born or naturalized, to protect their welfare, uphold its laws, and secure long-term economic stability. This is especially true when foreign generosity is made possible only by increasing the debt obligations of future generations.

In every international crisis, the moral path forward is rarely simple. The temptation to act out of sentiment, fear, or political expediency is ever-present. But the righteous use of power demands careful discernment. The United States must evaluate each scenario with moral clarity—guided not by ideology or emotional impulse, but by justice, stewardship, and proportional duty.

Ultimately, true clarity will come only through the intercession and prayers of the faithful—those who seek not merely what is expedient, but what is good in the eyes of God. May all decisions of national consequence be made with the humility to ask not only what we can do, but what we should do, as stewards of a nation under God.

The United States’ action against Iran reflects a restrained, morally justified intervention designed to prevent greater evil. By contrast, restraint toward North Korea upholds biblical prudence and the sanctity of innocent life. In Ukraine, the moral onus lies more heavily on Europe. For the U.S., the higher obligation is to safeguard the economic and civic well-being of its citizens. Moral leadership begins with responsible stewardship at home.

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”

1 Timothy 2:1–2

Some portions of this letter were thoughtfully shaped with the help of ChatGPT by OpenAI, based on the ideas and direction I provided. The reflections and conclusions are my own, shared with love and care for our family’s understanding of these important issues.

Iam Kerr

“… as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord….”