When Geopolitics Turns Sacred

By Mohamad Hammoud

Christian Zeal, Jewish Extremism, and the Hidden Theology of the War on Iran

In Washington, the confrontation with Iran is usually presented as a matter of strategy—preventing nuclear proliferation, protecting allies, and maintaining regional stability. Yet beneath these official explanations, another current shapes the conversation: one rooted less in policy and more in religious conviction.

For example, Newsweek reports that more than two hundred American service members have filed complaints describing moments when military commanders spoke about the conflict with Iran in overtly religious terms. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which collected these testimonies, found that some commanders even drew direct connections between the conflict and biblical prophecy. In one particularly striking case, a commander told his troops that Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon.”

Such portrayals are jarring in light of Trump’s long record of legal controversies. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against him and his businesses, with allegations ranging from fraud and financial violations to sexual misconduct and connections to Jeffrey Epstein. Notably, one civil complaint alleged that Trump sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl at gatherings associated with Epstein. Although the lawsuit was withdrawn before trial and Trump denied wrongdoing, these allegations highlight the contrast between a leader cast in prophetic terms and the scandals that continue to shadow his public life.

Evangelical Prophecy and the Politics of “Israel”

Religious interpretations of Middle Eastern politics are nothing new in American life; they have influenced conversations and policy for generations. For many evangelical Christians, the modern state of Israel is intertwined with biblical prophecy. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has noted that evangelical leader John Hagee has argued that Israel’s creation fulfills scripture and obliges Christians to support it. This perspective, however, is not universal. Some leaders, like Reverend Johnnie Moore, warn that prophecy should not sanctify political conflict. Pope Francis has also insisted that invoking religion to justify violence corrupts Christianity’s moral message, urging reconciliation instead of apocalyptic confrontation.

When people begin to interpret geopolitical events as milestones in biblical prophecy, the distinction between foreign policy and theology grows blurred. Alliances can take on the weight of spiritual obligations, and conflicts sometimes begin to resemble scenes in a divine drama. In this environment, support for Israel is not merely a strategic choice—it becomes a theological imperative for certain segments of American political culture.

Al-Quds and the Explosive Power of Sacred Geography

No place exemplifies the perils of fusing religion with geopolitics more starkly than Al-Quds [“Jerusalem”]. At its heart rises the Dome of the Rock on Haram al Sharif—revered by Muslims as the site from which the Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] ascended to heaven during the Isra and Mi’raj, and claimed by Jews as the location of their ancient First Temple and Second Temple.

Certain Christian Zionists and Jewish extremists advocate destroying the existing Islamic holy sites to rebuild a Third Temple, seeking to fulfill what they see as biblical prophecy. The gravity of this tension was brought into the public eye on The Tucker Carlson Show, when Tucker Carlson aired a clip of Yosef Mizrachi stating that, if he had his way, he would missile-strike the Dome of the Rock, blame Iran, and spark a war between Arabs and Iran. It is a chilling example of the mindset shared by some Jewish extremists and Christian Zionists.

The War’s Escalation and Iran’s Narrative

Western officials frame the conflict as essential to curbing Iranian power and nuclear threats, often echoing “Israeli” intelligence—never mind “Israel’s” track record of twisting facts to shape security narratives, including the case of Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. Some “Israeli” officials have also argued that sustained pressure could fracture Iranian society and lead to the collapse of its political system.

Tehran rejects this framing. Iranian leaders argue that the conflict has little to do with nuclear weapons or human rights, pointing to Western support for “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza as evidence that humanitarian concerns are applied selectively. From Tehran’s perspective, the confrontation represents punishment for Iran’s refusal to align with US and “Israeli” regional priorities.

History shows that Western powers have repeatedly failed to grasp the complexities of the Middle East, and Iran in particular. Western interventions have often united Iranians against foreign influence, whether during the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s or in the outpouring of outrage after the martyrdom of Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei in 2026. The West’s continued reliance on “Israeli” narratives—often tailored to serve “Israeli” interests—only deepens this mistrust and fuels resistance.

For many in Iran, these episodes reinforce the belief that their nation is engaged in a broader struggle against external domination.