Religion and Geopolitics in the War Against Iran: When Weapons Are Legitimised by Faith

Written for NAP by: Prof. Dr. Hazim Bašić

The aggression launched by the United States and Israel against Iran has opened a sensitive question of contemporary geopolitics: the intertwining of religion and military strategy. When political and military leaders begin to use religious language, biblical references and sacred symbols, the conflict ceases to be merely geopolitical – it becomes ideological and civilisational. It is precisely such discourse that has marked this conflict.

According to reports, already in the early phase of the war, claims emerged that certain American soldiers were informed that the war was linked to the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. That it was 'part of a divine plan' and connected to the 'end times', i.e. Armageddon.

Particularly significant is the rhetoric of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who described the conflict with Iran through a biblical analogy: 'Remember what Amalek did to you… We remember and we act.'

With this reference, Iran was symbolically equated with Amalek – a biblical enemy that, according to the Old Testament narrative, was to be completely destroyed. In biblical tradition, Amalek represents an enemy whose destruction has divine legitimacy, which gives this statement a particularly radical political dimension.

It is therefore possible to note that in the discourse of American and Israeli officials, evangelical apocalyptic motifs and biblical symbolism have appeared as a framework for interpreting the war. Such rhetoric transforms a political conflict into a moral-religious confrontation, where the opponent is no longer a state but 'evil' that must be eliminated. This precisely represents the most dangerous aspect of the sacralisation of geopolitics.

The rhetoric of force as a 'theology of power'

Although he had no experience leading a large military system, nor managing structures in the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth was appointed US Secretary of Defense. A key part of his career has been marked by media engagement and right-wing political activism. What to expect from a minister whose career is predominantly media-based, whose public appearances are intensely ideological, and who lacks professional military command experience?

Hence, his further radicalisation of war discourse is not surprising. For example, he concluded one speech by invoking divine protection over pilots and soldiers: 'May the eternal hand of providence protect them and bring them peace in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.' And his statement: 'The only ones who should be worried now are the Iranians who think they will survive' corresponds with Trump's announcement 'tonight I will destroy an entire civilisation'.

His militaristic statement 'we negotiate with bombs' is also well-known, representing a paradigm of 'diplomacy of force'. In addition to all the above, Hegseth has tattoos of symbols associated with the Crusades, including the phrase 'Deus Vult' ('God wills it'), which was the battle cry of the First Crusade. He also has a tattoo of the Jerusalem cross and other motifs linked to the idea of religious war. When his rhetoric is connected with the religious symbols he uses, an ideological framework emerges that recalls the Crusades.

The role of Secretary of Defense requires cool assessment, strategic thinking, and avoidance of ideological radicalisation. However, the combination of militaristic rhetoric and Crusader symbolism raises a legitimate question about his political and professional competence. A Secretary of Defense who publicly uses religious symbols of the Crusades against the Muslim world and simultaneously leads a war against Iran, a state with an Islamic identity, inevitably sends a message of ideological conflict. Thus, the military operation is not perceived as a limited geopolitical conflict, but as a civilisational confrontation. This ideological framework also encompasses the 'war aims' of the first day of the war: the supreme religious leader of Iran was killed, along with 165 elementary schoolgirls.

Religion as a legitimisation of war

Certain American commanders, inclined towards Christian nationalism, presented the war to soldiers as a 'final struggle between good and evil'. It is interesting that such elements of religious fanaticism displayed by the aggressors are absent from the statements of officials of the attacked state. The Iranians, who are literally fighting for the bare survival of their state, make strategic decisions thoughtfully, regularly announce military actions, and respect the codes of war. In doing so, their own lives are secondary to them.

The danger of the sacralisation of conflict arises when political leaders use religion to legitimise military force. When geopolitics begins to be interpreted through prophecies, and military force is legitimised by faith, war ceases to be an instrument of policy and becomes an ideological mission. And history shows that it is precisely such wars that are the cruelest and most dangerous for the international order. Instead of rational geopolitics, an ideological conflict emerges that recalls medieval patterns.

In the case of the aggression against Iran, the combination of religious references and apocalyptic narratives hinders rational negotiations. When the boundary between modern geopolitics and the rhetoric of 'holy war' is lost, consequences are no longer determined solely by military strategies, but by beliefs.