FOR as long as human beings have waged war, they have also tried to restrain it. Across civilizations, religions and philosophies, thinkers have attempted to answer a simple but profound question: When is war morally justified? The answers that emerged — from Augustine and Aquinas in the Christian tradition to the jurists of classical Islam — were never meant to glorify conflict. They were meant to civilize it, to place boundaries around the use of force and to ensure that power did not become a license for cruelty. These principles, collectively known as Just War theory, were designed to protect the innocent, restrain the strong and remind nations that even in war, morality cannot be abandoned.
At its core, Just War theory insists that war must only be fought for a just cause, declared by legitimate authority, pursued with right intention and undertaken only when all peaceful avenues have been exhausted. Even then, the conduct of war must remain bound by proportionality and the absolute protection of civilians. And when the fighting ends, justice must guide the peace that follows. These ideas are not abstract. They form the backbone of modern international humanitarian law.
Islamic tradition, too, developed a remarkably sophisticated and humane framework for the ethics of war. Contrary to the distortions of extremists and the misunderstandings of outsiders, jihad in the Islamic sense is not a license for aggression. It is a disciplined, morally constrained struggle in the path of God, one that includes spiritual striving but also, under very specific conditions, armed defense. Islamic law is unequivocal: war cannot be initiated for conquest, revenge or domination. Only a legitimate authority may declare it. Civilians — women, children, monks, farmers, traders — are inviolable. Treaties must be honoured. Retaliation must never exceed the harm suffered. And war must always be the last resort. The purpose of jihad, in its martial sense, is to preserve peace and justice, not to perpetuate conflict.
Yet today, as the United States and Israel wage an expanding war against Iran and Lebanon, these principles — Western and Islamic alike — are being openly disregarded. The justifications offered for this conflict rest on pre-emptive fears, anticipated threats and geopolitical calculations, not on actual aggression. Pre-emptive war is not self-defense. It is a choice, not a necessity. And when war becomes a choice, morality becomes its first casualty.
Diplomacy was not exhausted. Regional mediation was not given space. Instead, the conflict escalated through covert strikes, assassinations, cyber operations and rapid military deployments. The principle of last resort — the moral heart of Just War theory — was set aside. The conduct of the war has been equally troubling. Strikes on civilian infrastructure, energy grids and densely populated urban areas have caused suffering far beyond any legitimate military objective. This violates the most basic requirement of proportionality and the absolute prohibition on targeting non-combatants. Sweeping sanctions and blockades have inflicted hardship on millions of ordinary Iranians and now the Lebanese, amounting to collective punishment — something forbidden in every moral and legal tradition worth its name.
Perhaps most concerning is the absence of any credible vision for a just peace. There is no plan for reconstruction, no roadmap for regional stability, no commitment to restoring rights or sovereignty. Without justice after war, even a militarily successful campaign becomes morally hollow. A war that begins without just cause, is fought without restraint and ends without justice cannot be defended under any ethical framework — Western, Islamic or universal.
This matters far beyond the borders of Iran and Lebanon. The international system rests on a simple principle: no nation, however powerful, is above the law. When major powers violate the very norms, they expect others to follow, the entire rules-based order begins to crumble. Smaller states lose faith in global institutions. Armed groups exploit the hypocrisy. Conflicts multiply. International law becomes a tool of convenience rather than a universal standard. A world where rules apply only to the weak is not a rules-based order. It is a world sliding back toward might makes right.
If the global community expects restraint from Iran, Pakistan or any other state, then the United States and Israel must also be held to the same standards. Justice cannot be selective. Morality cannot be optional. Law cannot be a privilege of the powerful. If we truly want a world governed by rules rather than raw power, then the principles of just war must be upheld universally — not only when convenient, not only when politically useful, but always.
For Pakistan, as an Islamic republic, this moment carries a deeper lesson. Our moral ascendency in global affairs depends on aligning our policies with the ethical foundations of our own tradition. We cannot advocate justice abroad while ignoring the principles of justice embedded in our own faith. The Islamic framework for just war is not a relic of history. It is a living moral compass, one that demands discipline, restraint and a commitment to peace even in the face of provocation.
The US–Israel war on Iran is more than a geopolitical crisis. It is a test of whether the world still believes in the idea of a just war — a war fought only, when necessary, conducted with humanity and concluded with justice. If powerful nations continue to wage war without meeting these standards, then the entire international system risks collapsing into a future defined by endless conflict and selective morality.
To prevent that future, we must insist — consistently and courageously — that war is only just when it is truly necessary, morally restrained and aimed at restoring peace rather than imposing domination. Anything less is not a just war. It is simply war.
—The writer is Ex-Chairman, National Disaster Management Authority.
