by Rick Shaw
What to make, as Catholics, of President Trump’s incursions into Venezuela and Iran?
Pope Leo urged a safeguarding of human and civil rights in Venezuela that ensures “a future of stability and concord.” Regarding Iran, he warned presciently against a widening of the conflict, praying “that the thunderous sound of bombs may cease, weapons may fall silent,” and “the voice of the people can be heard.” Archbishop Thomas Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged “a halt to the spiral of violence and a return to multilateral diplomatic engagement.”
Both were measured, calling for an end to hostilities without casting blame or taking sides.
Not so Cardinal Robert McElroy of Washington, D.C., who cited Catholic “just war” teaching to condemn America’s attack on Iran as “not morally legitimate”—a position also voiced, if more cautiously, by Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Military Archdiocese.
Conversely, Catholic commentator William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal invoked “just war” principles to assert that U.S. military action in Iran is morally justified.
So what are the practical pros and cons?
In Venezuela, the Marxist Maduro regime impoverished the people of that oil-rich nation, using its wealth to line their own pockets, support other Marxist dictatorships in the region, build up their military, and align themselves with the murderous drug cartels that are killing thousands throughout the region and across the United States.
In Iran, as Cardinal McElroy concedes, “Almost everyone rightly believes that the Khameini regime has been for decades a brutal and repressive government that has spread terrorism throughout the world and should be replaced.” That regime continues to pursue nuclear weapons; violently undermine the Abraham Accords through which President Trump had initiated peaceful engagement between Israel and some (formerly hostile) Arab nations; and exploit Iran’s abundant oil reserves to enrich themselves, dominate their region, manipulate world oil prices, and strengthen their military arsenal.
In both countries, supporters contend, U.S. actions are morally justified to depose tyrannical regimes that terrorize neighboring states and menace world peace and freedom.
The main counter-argument—voiced not only by Trump’s opponents, but by some MAGA supporters—is summed up in the simple question: What next?
As we learned in the aftermath of 9-11, removing malevolent regimes is the easy part. We drove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and captured and executed Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
But trying to install Western-friendly governments in both nations proved disastrous. Iraq descended into the chaos and terror of ISIS, then into an Iranian client state. In Afghanistan, the Taliban simply bided their time, retaking power 20 years later amid America’s chaotic withdrawal.
Trump campaigned against such failed attempts at “regime change” and “nation-building,” promising to end “forever wars” that too often result from American efforts to implement democracy in hostile environments.
This, he insists, is not that. But where, exactly, do we go from here?
Currently, things seem stable in Venezuela. Maduro was captured with a minimum of bloodshed, and his Marxist vice president is cooperating with America. But for how long? What is the endgame, and what long-term American commitment will be required?
In Iran, Trump’s narrative changes with events.
He told us last June that we had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities. Now he says this current war is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. In February, he declared the Khameini regime “decapitated” by our first round of bombing. Yet weeks later, it is still being sustained by leadership that is fighting back and widening the war.
“Many Countries,” he recently claimed, “will be sending War Ships to help keep the Strait of Hormuz open and safe.” Within days, virtually every such nation disavowed any intention to do so.
So, what are we to believe from the president? What is the real purpose of this war? How much longer and more widespread might it become, and what will be the final outcome? Can real change happen without permanent regime change? And—even allowing that President Trump may achieve worthwhile goals here—what happens when Trump’s term ends, and our regime changes?
This recurring problem is exacerbated by our current polarization. The strength of our alliances, and the boldness of our adversaries, wax and wane with every shift in America’s turbulent political winds.
Looming over all these considerations is the potential impact of America’s actions on China’s global ambitions.
Israeli journalist Haviv Rettig Gur contends that by providing China with crude oil exports, Iran negated “the American navy’s ability to interdict” the Beijing regime’s energy imports, which was “China’s single greatest vulnerability.” China, he adds, “was also arming Iran with systems specifically designed to threaten commercial and American military assets.”
Now, writes longtime China analyst Steven Mosher, Trump has destroyed Iran’s ability to provide China with cheap oil, left Iran’s China-supplied military and telecom equipment “smoldering,” and provoked Iran into “reckless military barrages” that “have united the entire region against it—causing an enormous loss of face for its chief international backer.”
And this, Mosher writes, is “only the latest in a long series of recent geopolitical setbacks” Trump has delivered to “America’s chief adversary.”
His tariffs have taken “a huge bite out of China’s predatory trade profits.”
In Latin America:
Trump successfully pressured Panama to end China’s de facto control of the Panama Canal, keeping “this vital strategic waterway” open to international shipping;
Removing Maduro “cut off China’s supply of cheap Venezuelan oil,” “obliterated billions in Chinese-made military equipment,” and “effectively ended China’s influence” over Venezuela; Cutting off Venezuelan oil supplies to Cuba has “begun the liberation of another key client state of China’s.”
Seeing China’s overtures in Greenland, Mosher writes, Trump’s “heated rhetoric got what he wanted all along: effective sovereignty over the parts of the island needed for missile defense or resource development” vital to American security—and doubtless European and Greenland security as well, with China lurking.
Why is this so important? Because generations on from the unspeakable, genocidal atrocity that was Mao Zedong’s 40-year tyranny, current ruler Xi Jinping, behind the mask of a more subtle, sophisticated style, maintains ironclad control through those same Maoist tactics of mass terror and repression, epitomized by his enslavement of the Uyghur Muslims; barbaric forced organ harvesting practiced on targeted populations; continued suppression of religious faith and practice; and brutal crushing of freedom in Hong Kong.
Internationally, he continues to menace Taiwan while using China’s modernized economy, technological advancements, and growing military might to accelerate its drive toward an international Communist hegemony that would impose that same cruel totalitarian subjugation around the globe.
If blunting China’s drive toward world domination is part of Trump’s purpose, that is not in itself a dispositive justification of his actions in Venezuela and Iran. But it is, in my view, a powerful argument in their favor, as I remain convinced that Communist China is THE existential threat to world peace, security, and human freedom.
~~~
Rick Shaw: I have spent the last three decades in primarily Catholic communications work: as a reporter, news editor, columnist, and for eight years editor of The Long Island Catholic; several years as co-host and co-producer of The Catholic Forum program on the diocesan Telecare channel; two stints as Director of Communications for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; and a year as Associate Director for Communications at the New York State Catholic Conference. I also served for three years as Public Information Officer for the late Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillon, a staunchly Catholic and active pro-life leader.