Should the United States stage a preemptive attack on Iran, or would that be politically and morally wrong?

In a speech several years ago, President George W. Bush singled out three nations that his administration considered to be rogue nations, an "axis of evil": North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. While North Korea continues to be a foreign policy nightmare, the Bush administration invaded Iraq and now is fanning flames for a possible military adventure against Iran. Just as in the run-up to the Iraq War, politicians and diplomats are again making fearful references to 9/11, but now the context is Iran's determination to pursue a nuclear energy program and its April 11 announcement that it has succeeded in enriching low-grade uranium. John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, recently described Iran's nascent nuclear energy program on Nightline as, "just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time."

The Washington Post, the New Yorker, and other news sources have reported that the Bush administration is seriously considering the possibility of military action against Iran, including the option of a first nuclear strike to destroy the nation's nuclear, chemical, and war-making capabilities--Iran's weapons of mass destruction, if you will. Some argue that we must attack Iran before it grows too dangerous and is capable of a nuclear attack on Israel or on the United States; others say that this situation seems all too similar to the events leading to our precipitate invasion of Iraq and that a military solution could instead lead us toward an even greater disaster.

This study looks at the political history between the U.S. and Iran and discusses the theological and ethical issues Christians should consider in the current conflict. It provides four questions for discussion to stimulate a healthy conversation among thoughtful Christians.