Armageddon politics and the Iran war

The war unfolding in the Middle East may signal a troubling shift in global politics, as religious and apocalyptic narratives increasingly shape how the conflict with Iran is framed. Complaints submitted by US service members to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation report that some commanders invoked biblical imagery during military briefings, describing the war as part of “God’s divine plan”, citing the Book of Revelation, and even claiming that President Donald Trump had been “anointed by Jesus” to initiate events leading to Armageddon. 

In Christian eschatology, Armageddon — derived from Har-Megiddo, or Mount Megiddo, an ancient battlefield in northern Israel — represents the final battle before the end of the world. Such apocalyptic rhetoric not only sacralises the conflict but also creates a powerful ideological bridge between Israel’s narratives and the mobilisation of American troops.

The origins of the war against Iran were bluntly acknowledged by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself. Rubio admitted that US intelligence knew that there was going to be an Israeli action and expected that such an attack would trigger Iranian retaliation against American forces in the region. To avoid those anticipated casualties, Washington decided to strike Iran first. In other words, the US acted pre-emptively, not because Iran had attacked America, but because Israel was preparing to attack Iran and Iranian retaliation would likely target US troops. Stripped of diplomatic language, Rubio’s explanation reveals a stark reality: Israel forced the US to join the war.

Taken together, these rhetorics and actions point to a striking development: Israel has increasingly drawn the US into conflicts that advance not only its strategic objectives but also narratives framed in civilisational and even religious terms. In effect, the US military risks functioning like the historical Mamluks or Janissaries — forces mobilised to fight on behalf of another power. 

Such religious framing of geopolitical conflict recalls what once appeared to be merely an academic hypothesis: the “clash of civilisations”, first articulated by Samuel P. Huntington, who argued that future global conflicts would occur primarily along cultural and civilisational fault lines rather than ideological or economic divisions. In the post-Cold War search for new geopolitical frameworks, this civilisational narrative provided a powerful lens through which conflicts in the Middle East could be interpreted. Critics argue that such frameworks have gradually aligned Western strategic thinking with Israel’s security agenda, transforming regional disputes into broader civilisational confrontations that draw the US ever deeper into the region’s conflicts.

From the war in Gaza to the confrontation with Iran, this theory has increasingly been put into practice and gained momentum. The war in Gaza already demonstrated how such framing can transform political conflict into an existential struggle between “Amalek” and “Israel”. Now, Netanyahu not only repeats this “Amalek” narrative by quoting from the Torah but also names the attack on Iran and the assassination of Iranian leaders “Operation Rising Lion”, a reference to Numbers 23:24.

At the same time, during Donald Trump’s first term, Jewish billionaires such as Miriam Adelson reportedly donated hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions, while exchanging for the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Adelson alone reportedly contributed about US$100 million to support Trump and allied political groups. In this context, critics argue that these political and strategic alignments point toward a broader objective: weakening or even militarily defeating Iran as a major regional rival.

It is worth asking why the same billionaire donor would promise another US$250 million to Donald Trump if he were already eligible for a third presidential term. The offer reportedly came from the same Jewish megadonor Miriam Adelson during a White House Hanukkah event, where Trump said she encouraged him to consider running again despite the constitutional limits imposed by the 22nd Amendment and pledged additional financial support.

In this context, recent signals from Israeli leaders suggesting that Turkey could eventually become the next Iran in regional strategic calculations may point to a broader trajectory in Israel’s strategy. This trajectory reflects what critics describe as an expanding regional agenda: consolidating control over Gaza and the West Bank while seeking to weaken, fragment, or neutralise major regional powers that could challenge Israeli dominance, including states such as Iran — and potentially Turkey.

It is therefore not surprising to see Israel not only drawing the US into military confrontation with Iran but also encouraging narratives that portray Donald Trump as divinely chosen to initiate a kind of holy war. In doing so, the US appears to be abandoning the military principles developed after the Vietnam War, particularly the Powell Doctrine, which holds that force should be used only when vital national interests are at stake, when clear objectives exist, and when overwhelming force can secure a decisive victory. The doctrine also stresses the need for an exit strategy, public support, and the use of force only as a last resort after diplomacy has failed. 

Instead, the conflict increasingly relies on tactics such as deception, targeted assassinations and covert operations, while US objectives appear to be shifting from concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme toward broader goals such as regime change or even ideological transformation in Tehran. As Iran retaliates against US bases and regional allies and missile defence resources become strained, the world’s most powerful military now finds itself seeking assistance from local armed groups such as Kurdish forces.

From large Jewish political donations to Donald Trump to Israel’s wars in Gaza and Iran, it is increasingly clear that the driving force behind the confrontation with Iran is not simply the nuclear issue — something already demonstrated by Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA.

From Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital to Benjamin Netanyahu’s use of religious rhetoric — narratives that now reportedly even appear in some US military discourse — the pattern suggests that a broader vision of Greater Israel expansionism has been shaping the trajectory of conflict in the Middle East.

To fully or partially realise this objective, Israel has sought not only diplomatic and financial backing from the US but, in effect, military support that increasingly resembles a modern version of historical auxiliary forces such as the Mamluks or Janissaries that Israel knows well.

In the MAGA era, traditional geopolitical arguments alone may no longer be sufficient to keep the US deeply engaged in the region — a reality Israel has recognised since the end of the Cold War. In this context, religious narratives and civilisational rhetoric may serve as a powerful mechanism for sustaining American political and military support.

The central problem — and irony — in the Middle East today is the absence of nuclear balance and mutual deterrence. The relative stability of the Cold War was maintained largely through mutual nuclear deterrence, as Thomas Schelling argued as early as 1960. In the Middle East, however, Israel’s ambiguous nuclear deterrent has arguably emboldened its strategic expansion, heavily financed by the US and, at times, militarily supported by US forces. 

Without a comparable deterrence structure, the region has experienced repeated wars and cycles of escalation, as seen in Gaza, Iran and potentially elsewhere. Preventing the clash of civilisations from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy requires rejecting deterministic and apocalyptic narratives and reaffirming the principles that once sustained international order: diplomacy, legal norms, and strategic balance. In this context, establishing a credible nuclear balance and deterrence structure may become unavoidable. At present, one possible and practical option would be extending Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence umbrella to parts of the Middle East, as I have discussed previously.

Related: Strategic patience: How China navigates the Iran war | Why China stays measured on US-Israel strikes against Iran