Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.
As rockets are once again streaking across the skies of the Middle East and the cries of the bereaved echo through its ravaged streets, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s words and teachings reverberate like a mournful prayer in my spirit. They stir within me a deep sociopolitical and theological question, "Is 'just war' just?”
In this ongoing conflict, as in all wars, nation-states are forced to confront the terrible paradox of the just war theory — that the pursuit of justice can sometimes demand the violence it seeks to vanquish.
Just war doctrine roots trace back to the writings of St. Augustine and St, Thomas Aquinas. Augustine argued that war could be a purpose for the restoration of peace, while Aquinas' commentary is often interpreted as giving allowance to war. Though war was thought to be an inherent evil, there were certain conditions for its justification, including just cause (self-defense or the protection of innocents), last resort (all peaceful means exhausted), probability of success, proportionality (the ends justify the means) and right intention (the goal is peace, not conquest or domination).
However, even when these criteria are met, war inevitably brings about indiscriminate suffering, violating the fundamental principle of noncombatant immunity. Presently, Israel and Hamas are claiming cause. Israel argues its right to self-defense against indiscriminate rocket attacks, while Palestinians point to decades of occupation, blockade and creeping annexation.
The moral calculus of war becomes even more fraught when geopolitical alliances are factored in. The United States has long been Israel's staunchest backer, providing billions in military aid each year. This unwavering support, rooted in a complex mix of strategic interests, ideological alignment and domestic political pressures, significantly bolsters Israel's military might. Conversely, Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, funneling weapons and cash to bolster their military capabilities. Tehran views these relationships as a means to project power, challenge Israeli dominance and advance its regional agenda. These external influences further complicate the conflict, making a lasting resolution more elusive.
Such patron-client relationships further entrench the conflict, making a lasting resolution more elusive. Over the years, such relations have created a destructive cycle where escalation by one side is met with counter-escalation by the other, fueled by their respective backers; amidst this tangled web of alliances, the humanitarian cost mounts. Innocent civilians are often left to bear the burden of violence. Thus, leaving the international community struggling to navigate these competing interests hampers efforts to broker peaceable solutions. The longer military conflict persists, the greater the moral imperative to protect innocent lives and arrive at a point of just resolution.
Pursuing peace can be supported even at the height of cyclical violence when retribution continues. The efforts of good-faith actors or humanitarians demand more than a mere ceasefire. What is truly necessary is a commitment to address the underlying grievances, the longstanding grievances fueling historic conflict.
Despite its flaws, just war theory, for some, acts as a moral framework for judgment of their actions in the crucible of conflict. But it must be complemented by a tireless dedication to nonviolence and restorative justice championed by prophetic arbitrators like Dr. King and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. In reflection of devastation and unrest across the region, we are reminded that justice is not found in the rubble of war but in acknowledging the dignity and sacredness of all human life.
The query is whether war is a just act. It ought to serve as a mirror held up to the soul of humanity in assessing its most authentic reflection. Forcing nations and individuals alike to wrestle with our respective capacity for cruelty and compassion, our penchant for division and our yearning for unity. As allied forces and regional actors involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict consider their next moves, pray all remember that true strength lies not in military might but in the courage to choose peace. All parties should prioritize the most vulnerable while seeking to enact justice. A justice that sincerely seeks peace — respecting and embracing all, regardless of their faith or nationality. Only time will tell.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.