Matthew 5:9 in the New International Version of the Bible states, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” Another translation, the New Living Translation, renders it as: “God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God.”
I find the latter wording particularly meaningful because it emphasizes that peace is not passive — it requires effort, resolve and sometimes difficult decisions.
This raises an important question for many people of faith: how do we reconcile this biblical teaching with the reality that our country, under President Trump, has taken aggressive action against the leadership of Iran? It is important to distinguish between opposition to a government and hostility toward its people. The Iranian people themselves are not the enemy. Rather, the concern lies with the actions and intentions of their ruling leadership.
From my perspective, President Trump is pursuing a long-term strategy rather than continuing the pattern of “kicking the can down the road” that has characterized the policies of several previous administrations. Iran’s leadership has a long and well-documented history of supporting terrorist organizations and destabilizing activities across the Middle East. I believe the greatest concern has been the possibility that this regime could develop the capability to inflict devastating harm on the United States, Israel and other nations that oppose its ideology.
If left unchecked, the potential consequences could be catastrophic. The possibility of a regime that openly supports militant proxies and hostile actions obtaining greater military capabilities presents a serious risk to global stability. Taking firm action now, I would argue, may prevent far greater violence and destruction in the future.
Viewed through this lens, the actions of the United States and its allies may be understood not as a rejection of peace, but as an attempt to secure a more stable and peaceful world over the long term. History shows that peace is sometimes preserved through strength and deterrence. Confronting threats before they grow beyond control can, in some cases, prevent far larger conflicts.
In addition, many critics of Iran’s leadership point to the ideological motivations behind its policies. Radical Islamist movements have frequently promoted doctrines that are hostile toward democratic values and religious freedom. These movements have demonstrated a willingness to use violence to pursue their objectives and to intimidate or silence those who oppose them.
Historically, conflicts between expanding empires and opposing civilizations are not new. The medieval Crusades are often cited as a period when Christian kingdoms mobilized to resist the expansion of Islamic powers into regions of Europe and the Mediterranean. While historians debate the motivations and outcomes of these conflicts, they illustrate that ideological and religious tensions have shaped world events for centuries.
In modern times, the strategies used to spread influence have evolved. Military conquest is not always the primary tool. Cultural, political and demographic changes can also reshape societies over time. The developments in parts of Western Europe in recent years are clear examples where immigration and demographic shifts have sparked debates over integration, cultural identity, and the role of religious law in secular democracies and have brought about profound changes in the name of collectivism.
Similar discussions have emerged in the United States in communities where Muslim populations have grown, such as parts of Michigan and Minnesota. These debates often center on how immigrant communities integrate into American civic life while maintaining their cultural and religious traditions. I believe strongly that the foundational principles of the United States — religious freedom, equal protection under the law, and the separation of religion and government — must remain firmly protected and that there should be no implementation of sharia law to the extent that it should actually be outlawed.
Ultimately, the challenge for our nation is to remain faithful to our principles while confronting real security threats in a complex and dangerous world. Striving to be “peacemakers,” as the Gospel calls us to do, does not always mean avoiding conflict at all costs. Sometimes it means confronting dangers with clarity and resolve in order to prevent greater suffering later.
Peace, after all, is not merely the absence of conflict. It is the presence of justice, security, and freedom. Achieving that kind of peace often requires wisdom, courage and a willingness to act before threats grow beyond our ability to contain them.
Arny Davis
Adna
