It always makes me a little nervous when nuclear-armed countries get involved in a hot military conflict. First is the Russian war against Ukraine, with Ukraine surprisingly holding out and even scoring surprising hits against Russia, despite Trump’s cheerleading for Putin. Then there is skirmishing between India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed states. And now Israel and Iran are lobbing missiles and drones at each other, Israel because Iran was allegedly getting closer to producing its own nuclear weapons and Iran in retaliation for getting bombed by Israel. It sure seems like missiles flying all over the place (and across national borders) is becoming the new normal. Not that you or most people approve of it, but when it shows up on the news you aren’t surprised. You watch a news report for 30 seconds, say “darn, more missiles,” then go find that new show on Netflix you’ve heard about.
Now, within the last 48 hours, Trump ordered US B-2 bombers to just fly over and drop some really big “bunker buster” bombs on Iranian nuclear research facilities. They apparently flew from the US all the way to Iran, then after taking care of business they flew all the way back. We’re all scratching our heads a bit about this. It’s not like Iran sent any missiles at the US or even at any Middle East military bases lately, so this is not a defensive response or retaliation. Iran sponsors third-party militias like the Houthis to stir up trouble, but it’s not clear that’s a justification to drop really big bombs on Iran, plus Trump is not even holding that out as justification for the bombing.
Technically it’s quite unclear whether the US President even has the legitimate power to take such a non-defensive action without any authorization from Congress (which used to take an active role in the US government). And by “technically” I mean according to the United States Constitution, which grants the authority to declare war to the Congress, not the President. But neither the Congress nor even US Supreme Court seems willing to hold Trump accountable for ignoring the Constitution anymore. If Trump can just send a bunch of bombers to obliterate targets in another country all on his own and no one in the US government really has a problem with that, it’s safe to say there aren’t any guardrails anymore. It’s game over, folks.
We’ll get to the Mormon link in a paragraph or two, but I’m still open to some sort of explanation for why everyone seems so okay with this stunningly unexplained use of devastating US military force by Trump. The administration isn’t even *attempting* to justify this action with a statement along the lines of, “We were justified in dropping really big bombs on Iran because X.” Give me a legitimate X here. (1) They have said “We don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons.” Well, we don’t want anyone new to have those weapons, but we didn’t bomb North Korea or, for that matter, Israel when *they* got nukes. Why does any of that make it okay to just send in bombers to Iran, unilaterally? It’s not like they bombed us first. (2) Maybe it’s because Netanyahu asked Trump to do the bombing, because Israel has bombs but not really big bombs. And Trump said yes. That may be an explanation as to why Trump did it, but “… because Netanyahu asked me to” is not a legal justification. (3) Another explanation is that the recently popular TACO acronym (Trump Always Chickens Out) got under Trump’s skin so he sent bombers to Iran to show he’s not a chicken, he’s a tough guy. It’s not like Trump is fooling anyone on this count– he does generally chicken out or at least opportunistically change his mind an awful lot — but it is disturbing that a US President is so easily manipulated, whether by a Netanyahu phone call or by being teased about changing his mind every other day.
Another explanation (4) is that Trump actually for once believes US intelligence and FBI in their claim about recent Iranian attempts to have Trump assassinated — which actual attempts were thwarted by US authorities. Arrests were made and charges were filed by the US Dept. of Justice, so significant steps were apparently taken in this plot. Trump pulled Secret Service protection from others who were targets of the Iranians in the plot, such as John Bolton, former National Security Advisor to Trump. Trump, of course, kept his own Secret Service protection in place. I’m thinking this attempted Trump assassination was yet another personal (as opposed to national interest) explanation for bombing Iran.
SO (here’s the Mormon part) I went to the LDS Newsroom to see if there was any LDS leadership statement on the recent hostilities, which for all we know may be the opening chapters of WW3. The most recent relevant Newsroom statement I could find was from October 12, 2023, which was just a few days after the Hamas incursion which killed a bunch of Israelis and took many more back to Gaza as hostages. Here is the short statement in full:
We are devastated by the recent eruption of violence and loss of life in the Middle East. Violence of this nature is abhorrent to us and is not in harmony with the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a gospel of peace. At such times, our hearts ache for all victims of this atrocity.
As servants of God, we affirm that He calls upon all of us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and we pray for a peaceful resolution of all conflicts.
I don’t know what exactly LDS leaders might post in a more recent statement. Maybe just a follow-up statement, “We continue to deplore violence and loss of life in the Middle East and elsewhere …”? It’s just a little jarring to go from thirty minutes of news at your favorite news network to the news releases at the LDS home page. Of the ten stories listed, five concern temples (everything is about temples these days), three about GA visits to other countries, one about foreign dignitaries visiting LDS leaders in Salt Lake, and one about “Highlights From the 2025 Seminar for New Mission Leaders.“
If I was in a better mood (that is, if I wasn’t worried about World War 3 sneaking up on us) I might have done an entire post on that 2025 seminar. I would note that they say “New Mission Leaders” so as to include the wives of newly called Mission Presidents. I would go through a few of the linked remarks to see just what the Big 15 are telling new Mission Presidents. Elder Soares talked about “The Power of the Spirit in Missionary Work” and President Nelson talked about “The Converting Power of the Book of Mormon.” So it’s nothing you haven’t heard before. They put thousands of leadership hours and millions of dollars into leading and directing the LDS missionary effort. I’m a little surprised they don’t come up with something a little bit new now and then.
If you have patiently read my rambling paragraphs this far, thank you. The floor is now yours and there is lots to talk about. Pick one.
- For US readers, if Trump say got upset at the new Canadian Prime Minister and unilaterally ordered a few B-2’s up north to bomb a Canadian military base, do you think anyone in the chain of command (or the White House) would say no? Or resign in protest?
- For readers outside the US, what’s your reaction? Is it “nice that someone finally dished out some payback to the Iranians” or is it “whoa, can anyone just bomb anyone else these days?”
- Do you think LDS leaders should release a few more statements from time to time on current affairs? Understandably, they don’t like to take sides, but it seems like they ought to say something every few months, not every few years.
- If you were asked to speak at the 2026 New Mission Leaders conference, what would you say to the new Mission Presidents and spouses?
Wheat & Tares 
Interesting thoughts….. So Trump lies, what’s new; he changes his mind a lot, you’re kidding; he bullies, yup; he has very few that will call him out, that’s the real problem.
I think what makes me saddest isn’t the church leaders not making any statements (they should), but political leaders who are LDS who don’t say or do anything, and members who not only support him, but actively parrot all the crazy justifications that come from the right. Granted, it’s not all members. There are a few who are disgusted, but many more who now refuse to watch the news in any form and continue to believe that Republicans are good and Democrats wicked, with no exceptions.
Well, nice to know we not only have a president who can drop massive bunker-busting bombs on a moment’s notice, but he seems to have a direct line with deity:
“And in particular, God, I want to just say, we love you God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East, God bless Israel, and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you.”
An American president acting unilaterally is very concerning. Trump isn’t the first. Obama (Libya 2011) and Clinton (Sudan and Afghanistan 1998, before 9/11) both did it. Bush went to war against Iraq and Afghanistan, but Congress passed an authorization to use military force for each of those. Not quite the same as a declaration of war, but it least it was better than unilateral presidential action, as presidents both Republican and Democratic are wont to do. Was President Carter’s failed attempt to rescue the embassy hostages in Iran in 1980 an act of war that needed Congressional approval? When is military action a war? Is a strike a war? Is committing an act of aggression the same thing as fighting a war when there is no intent to occupy or to pursue fighting? I don’t know what the church should say officially on this issue. One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. Maybe the church should avoid political questions altogether. Did Peter have anything to say about what the Romans were doing in Germania?
Obama came to a monumental agreement with Iran and several other countries, which Iran was abiding by. Trump tore that up in 2018. The reason: Iranophobia in the right-wing echosphere which dictates that Iran should always be hysterically feared no matter how irrational that fear is. And Trumpist nihilism, which dictates that anything that the Democrats accomplished should be torn down, simply because it was a Democrat who did it.
I’m actually fine with presidents ordering strikes to combat flare-up militant groups that could severely hurt US interests abroad. Especially because Congressional approval can be a long drawn-out process and action needs to happen fast in many situations. But it depends on the situation. I think Obama and Clinton were fine to order some strikes without Congressional approval. But Trump’s handling of Iran has set the Middle East ablaze. Obama was strategically bringing Iran back into being a good player in world affairs. And then Trump gave reasons for Iran to fear that right-wing jingoism would lead to their detriment. Trump’s victory emboldened right-wing zealots in Israel who vigorously sought to upend any semblance of a two-state solution, even by funding Hamas to hold out against the PA. It was reported that Iran had grown closer to creating a nuclear bomb after Trump tore up the agreement. Now most recently a report surfaced that the most recent attack on Iran set Iran’s nuclear program back only by about 4 months. Trump’s claim that he obliterated Iran’s nuclear program and nuclear sites was a complete lie. Iran is now more likely to build a nuclear bomb than ever. Trump erased years of painstaking progress towards a diplomatic solution with Iran. The bombings have done nothing more than aggravate Iran who will undoubtedly ramp up efforts to thwart the US in the region now.
By the 1970s, there was little that the US could do to prevent a massive uprising in Iran that would eventually result in the overthrow of the Shah and the rise of Khomeini and the Islamic Republic. Jimmy Carter chose the path of diplomacy. And he was right to do so. As hostage Barry Rosen said, “Well, I sincerely believe that Carter saved our lives. I mean, he sacrificed his presidency and worked assiduously for those 444 days to make our freedom the uppermost in his mind.” Wars and invasions and attacks don’t always solve everything. Carter also helped broker peace between Israel and Egypt, which lasts to this day. Israel gave up its hold on the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for this peace. We could use a man like Carter now. We’re doomed with the criminal clowns in power now.
There’s plenty of precedent for presidents acting unilaterally militarily, but I don’t like it. Fundamentally this world we’re in now is a product of the nuclear age and the existence of ICBMs in particular, which make it theoretically possible for a nation to launch a world-altering attack that must be responded to within a matter of minutes. We should seek to reduce that threat, both because the nuclear threat isn’t good for anyone, and because of the concentration of power in the presidency that I don’t think the authors of the constitution envisioned. We should seek to better codify in law the boundaries of warmaking powers of those two branches of government, because both sides of the debate right now do have precedent to point to. And most of all we should seek to put in office, especially the presidency, people who have demonstrated themselves to be wise, cautious and show restraint, none of which are true of the current occupant of the office.
The church’s silence on these issues is one of the things that weighed heavily on my shelf and contributed to its eventual collapse.
I remember during the covid stuff one of the Q15 (I think) going to some religious conference and I thought “finally, Christ has a true representative that will go and speak on the lack of empathy and love we see everywhere.” Nope. He just complained that the govt shouldn’t be able to tell people to not congregate in the middle of a massive pandemic.
If it was really Christ’s church, they should be able to call out evil whenever they see it, consequences be damned, because Jesus would always have their backs. It’s telling how they are content to watch the world burn, as long as everyone remembers to pay their tithing.