The strike against Soleimani wasn’t done out of moral consideration. It’s an act of foreign policy, which is amoral. As I pointed out, US foreign policy has been and continues to be morally flexible, to put it mildly. It’s never a matter of morals; it’s a matter of interest.

Israel assassinated civilian scientists in Iran, Syria and Egypt. Was that moral? No. Was it praised and supported by US politicians. Yes. Why? Because it advanced US interests.

The Apartheid government of South Africa was carrying out bombings in London, Mozambique, Denmark and within its borders, but Nelson Mandela and the ANC were the ones labeled “terrorist” by the US State Dept. It’s a selective label used when America’s enemies do violence. In the context of the Cold War, the ANC was being supported by the Soviets, therefore they were enemies, and the fascist apartheid state were allies.

Was Saddam Hussein a bad guy? Yes. Was there a legitimate pretext for overthrowing him? Absolutely not. The US government will tolerate, support and/or provide cover for these people so long as they advanced US interests, just as they did Soleimani, who helped the US military fight the Taliban until Bush declared Iran to be part of the “Axis of Evil.”

They only amp up this rhetoric when it comes time to build the case for war, sanctions or other actions, and even if you say you are against war, if you make concessions by echoing this same rhetoric, as Warren did, then you are culpable in fostering the climate for war.

Lastly, I would say it’s nonsensical to frame this as moral vs. political, as if the taking of life on an industrial scale were some sort of morally neutral act.

Opposing war at all costs is the moral stance.