Diplomatic Analysis: Navigating the ethical complexities of military AI requires robust governance, not outright rejection.
The recent publication of Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, has injected fresh urgency into the debate surrounding the development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in warfare. The encyclical’s stark critique of AI-enhanced conflict – arguing it lowers the threshold for violence and dehumanises warfare – presents a significant challenge to security scholars and policymakers alike. This analysis examines the key arguments within the encyclical, assesses the implications for Israel and Iran – both actively investing in AI capabilities – and argues for a path of responsible military AI development grounded in robust international governance, rather than outright abstention. The stakes are high; as great power competition intensifies and proliferation of AI technologies accelerates, navigating this ethical landscape is crucial to maintaining both security and moral standing.
Historical Context
The use of technology in warfare is not new. Throughout history, innovations have dramatically altered the conduct of conflict, often sparking ethical debate. From the introduction of gunpowder to the development of nuclear weapons, each technological leap has been accompanied by concerns about escalating violence and the erosion of moral constraints. The current wave of AI development, however, represents a qualitatively different shift. AI promises to fundamentally alter the speed, scale, and automation of warfare, raising the possibility of conflicts unfolding at a pace beyond human comprehension or control. The concept of ‘meaningful human control’ over lethal systems, central to the current debate, builds on decades of discussions surrounding autonomous weapons systems (AWS) and the need to preserve accountability in armed conflict. Previous attempts at international regulation, such as the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) discussions on AWS, have stalled due to disagreements among states, particularly regarding the definition of autonomy and the enforceability of any restrictions. Meanwhile, nations like the US, China, Russia, Israel and Iran have continued to invest heavily in military AI research and development.
Key Actors & Positions
Several key actors are shaping the debate on military AI. The Vatican, under Pope Leo XIV, is advocating for a fundamental re-evaluation of the “just war” doctrine and a strong ethical constraint on the development and deployment of AI in warfare, emphasizing human dignity. The United States views AI as essential for maintaining its military advantage, while publicly emphasizing the need for “responsible AI” principles – often focused on human oversight and minimizing civilian harm. China is similarly prioritizing AI development for military purposes, with less emphasis on ethical constraints and greater acceptance of automation. Russia has also made significant investments in military AI, particularly in areas like electronic warfare and autonomous systems. Israel is a leading developer of AI-powered military technologies, particularly in areas such as intelligence gathering, target recognition, and missile defence, driven by regional security concerns. Iran, facing regional isolation and asymmetric threats, is aggressively pursuing its own AI capabilities, viewing them as a means to deter adversaries and enhance its military resilience. All parties express support for preventing escalation, but perspectives diverge on the best ways to achieve that goal.
Analysis
Pope Leo XIV’s assessment rightly identifies the inherent risks of AI-enhanced warfare: increased speed, reduced human oversight, and the potential for escalating conflict. However, a blanket rejection of military AI is unrealistic and potentially counterproductive. Given the ongoing development of these capabilities by potential adversaries, particularly Iran, a complete abstention would disadvantage states committed to upholding international norms and could embolden actors unconstrained by ethical considerations. For Israel, facing a complex security environment and potential threats from multiple fronts, the potential benefits of AI – enabling more precise targeting, enhancing situational awareness, and improving defensive capabilities – may be considered indispensable.
The core challenge lies in finding a middle ground: embracing the potential benefits of AI while mitigating its risks. The Pope’s call for “rigorous ethical constraints” is a vital starting point, but these constraints require translation into concrete, legally binding regulations. The current reliance on non-binding declarations and aspirational frameworks is insufficient. Furthermore, the debate should shift beyond purely “autonomous weapons systems” to encompass the entire AI-powered military ecosystem, including intelligence analysis, command and control, and logistical systems. The Pentagon’s recent revision of its targeting doctrine, as highlighted in the source material, demonstrates a worrying trend towards increasing AI’s role in initiating actions, rather than solely assisting human decision-making. This shift necessitates increased scrutiny and stronger safeguards. A key risk is the potential for algorithmic bias and unintended consequences, particularly in complex operational environments.
Outlook
The next few years will be critical in shaping the future of military AI. The key will be to foster greater international cooperation to establish legally enforceable standards and verification mechanisms. The United States, as a technological leader, has a crucial role to play in driving this process. Increased pressure from NGOs and international bodies, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may force states to address the governance gap. However, progress will likely be incremental, due to geopolitical competition and differing national interests.
For Israel and Iran, the development and deployment of AI-powered military technologies are likely to continue, driven by regional security dynamics. A risk of miscalculation and escalation remains high, particularly in the absence of clear rules of engagement and robust de-confliction mechanisms. The ongoing tensions between these nations will likely accelerate the arms race, underlining the urgent need for a multilateral effort to establish and enforce international norms. Ultimately, the responsible development and deployment of AI in warfare requires a commitment to human dignity, ethical governance, and proactive diplomacy – a challenging but essential undertaking.
Sources:
Albert, Craig Douglas. “A Catholic Security Scholar’s Case for Responsible Military AI.” War on the Rocks, 6 July 2026, [https://warontherocks.com/2026/07/a-catholic-security-scholars-case-for-responsible-military-ai/](https://warontherocks.com/2026/07/a-catholic-security-scholars-case-for-responsible-military-ai/).
United States Department of Defense. Directive 3000.09: Autonomy in Weapon Systems. 2023.
United States Department of Defense. Instruction 3000.17: Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response. 2023.
