In the runup to Marco Rubio's Presidential announcement tonight, much has been made about his religious faith. He has been influenced by the Catholic Church, the LDS, and the Southern Baptist Convention. However, his call for war with Iran is incompatible with Biblical Christianity.
On the issues:
On the Middle East, Mr. Rubio has suggested that military action might be necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and has said the United States should have done more to help the more moderate rebels fighting the Syrian government. He has criticized the administration’s recent treatment of Israel as a “historic and tragic mistake.”
Rubio's faith, as detailed in the Huffington Post article, focuses on the closeness between man and God and God's efforts to reach out to mankind. However, as James notes, "faith without works is dead." And Jesus said that not everyone who called him "Lord" would receive everlasting life. Jesus is described in Isaiah and in the New Testament as "Prince of Peace," which means that although God may use wars to bring judgment on nations, it is His intent to make all wars cease.
By contrast, Rubio calls for war with Iran; in an interview with Hugh Hewitt, he says that he would cancel any deals that Obama made with Iran if he were to assume office.
Well first of all, we need to remember what's not being covered by these negotiations, which are just as important as their nuclear ambition, and that's the intercontinental ballistic missiles that they're developing. And it's very reasonable that before the end of this decade, Iran could possess a long range rocket that could reach the United States, the Continental U.S. They're rapidly, that's not even being covered by these negotiations. They're not even the subject of sanctions. And I think that alone is a reason to be imposing sanctions on Iran, not to mention their state sponsorship of terrorism. That being said, any agreement that allows Iran to retain enrichment capability, leaves in place the infrastructure they will need in five, ten, eight, whenever they decide to ramp up enrichment and produce a weapon, if the only thing standing between them and a nuclear weapon becomes, and the ability to deliver it through a long range rocket becomes the ability to enrich at a higher level, that's the easiest switch to flip.
However, not only is Rubio's assessment of Iran not compatible with any reasonable of interpretation of Christianity, it is not factual. The reason that Iran's missile capabilities are not a subject of negotiation is
that even their biggest missiles are not capable of reaching the US.
Iran has developed and deployed Shahab-1, -2, and -3 ballistic missiles in addition to shorter-range missiles such as the Fateh A-110; the Shahab-3 has the greatest range at an estimated 800-1000 km and weighs 1,300 kg. The Ghadr-1 missile, which began flight testing in 2004, is an advanced version of the Shahab-3, with an extended range of 1,100 – 1,600 km, although it cannot carry as heavy of a payload as the Shahab-3. Finally, Iran successfully tested the Sejil-2 (formerly Ashura) missile in 2009, which reportedly has a range of 2,000-2,200 kilometers, but has not yet been deployed.
The Sejil, with a maximum range of 1,400 miles, has been frozen due to technical problems as noted by the report. Therefore, the most dangerous missile in Iran's arsenal has a range of slightly over 1,000 miles. That means that even in the worst-case scenario, if Iran is planning on developing nuclear weapons, they are not directed against the US; they are directed against enemies such as Israel or Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, the proper solution to maintain stability in the Middle East is not to bomb Iran; the solution is to deescalate tensions between Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Bombing Iran would simply spawn even more terrorists, which would jeopardize both the US and Israel's security.
Contrary to Rubio's claims, Saudi Arabia may well be a much more dangerous enemy than Iran. Former Senator Bob Graham is conducting an active investigation into what he says is an FBI coverup of Saudi involvement in the tragic 9/11 attacks.
Mr. Graham, 78, a two-term governor of Florida and three-term senator who left Capitol Hill in 2005, says he will not relent in his efforts to force the government to make public a secret section of a congressional review he helped write — one that, by many accounts, implicates Saudi citizens in helping the hijackers.
“No. 1, I think the American people deserve to know the truth of what has happened in their name,” said Mr. Graham, who was a co-chairman of the 2002 joint congressional inquiry into the terrorist attacks. “No. 2 is justice for these family members who have suffered such loss and thus far have been frustrated largely by the U.S. government in their efforts to get some compensation.”
Mr. Graham’s focus on a possible Saudi connection has received renewed attention because of claims made by victims’ families in a federal court in New York that Saudi Arabia was responsible for aiding the Sept. 11 hijackers and because of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against the F.B.I. in Florida.
If what he says is true, then why are we supporting Saudi Arabia with billions of taxpayer dollars of military aid? Even if that is not the case, the fact that their government regularly engages in floggings and beheadings means that their government's values are incompatible with ours and we have no business supporting them any more than we did the Islamist rebels in Afghanistan, the Contras of Nicaragua, or the government of El Salvador and their right wing death squads. Senator Rubio is guilty of selective outrage when he calls for bombing Iran and then turns around and refuses to ask questions about possible Saudi involvement in the tragic 9/11 attacks.
It seems that certain Very Important People (TM) in the media and in government, along with the Bush Family, view supporting Saudi Arabia right or wrong as even more sacrosanct than supporting Israel right or wrong or supporting any wars or bombings that we conduct right or wrong such as Iraq, Vietnam, or our involvement in Lebanon. This notion ignores the fact that Saudi Arabia is planning to build 16 nuclear reactors by 2030, more than Iran ever dreamed of building. All for "peaceful purposes," of course.
None of this should be construed to be an advocacy for any kind of bombing of Saudi Arabia any more than I would support bombing of Iran. The problem with allowing nuclear energy to proliferate is that it foments way too much suspicion of the intentions of any country which seeks to develop it. Instead of sharing nuclear energy technology, we should be sharing wind, solar, and geothermal technology, all of which is much more peaceful than nuclear.
If Rubio gets his way, then all it will do is drive Iran into the arms of Russia. Putin has already announced a deal lifting a ban on missile sales to Iran. This was in response to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter's ill-considered remark boasting of US bunker buster capabilities. Iran has the potential to become a valuable partner to the US in the fight against ISIS, which is a much greater threat to world peace than Iran ever was. However, the kind of hysterical rhetoric that Marco Rubio is employing will only escalate tensions between the US and Iran and constitutes a major threat to world peace. If Rubio were to follow through and bomb Iran, then that would simply cause Russia to restart the nuclear arms race that the US and the USSR conducted throughout the Cold War.
Marco Rubio's faith has nothing to do with the actual teachings of either the Old Testament prophets or the teachings of Jesus. People are entitled to practice their own faith; however, they are not entitled to their own facts. Given that Rubio's plan to bomb Iran substantially increases the risk of a third world war and a nuclear holocaust with Russia, it is clear that he has an apocalyptic worldview similar to the teachings of Left Behind or Harold Camping.