In the quiet of the Oval Office during Holy Week, the traditional boundaries between American statecraft and religious devotion blurred. President Donald Trump was joined by a group of Christian pastors who offered blessings, some placing their hands on his shoulder and forearm in a solemn gesture of support. While the administration’s approach to the Middle East has long been viewed through the lens of “maximum pressure” and strategic alliances, these moments suggest that for some within the inner circle, the war on Iran is a Christian calling.
This infusion of theological language into foreign policy marks a departure from the historical norms of the U.S. Government, which is constitutionally bound by the separation of church and state. While geopolitical tensions with Tehran are often discussed in terms of nuclear proliferation and regional hegemony, a subset of Trump’s advisors and spiritual allies are now framing the confrontation as a divine mission—a struggle between biblical righteousness and a regime they characterize as wicked.
The rhetoric is not merely metaphorical. From the citation of ancient scriptures to the adoption of Crusader-era symbols, the framing of the conflict is shifting from a matter of national security to a spiritual imperative. This shift has significant implications for diplomacy, as conflicts cast in the light of a “holy war” often leave less room for the compromises required by traditional international relations.
Biblical Narratives and the Book of Esther
During the Holy Week event, the Reverend Franklin Graham, son of the late evangelist Billy Graham, invoked the Book of Esther to provide a spiritual precedent for the current tensions. Graham drew a direct line between the ancient Persians and the modern Iranian government, claiming that the biblical Persians had ordered the killing of all Jews.
Graham’s address to the president was explicit in its divine framing: “Today the Iranians, the wicked regime of this government, wants to kill every Jew and destroy them with an atomic fire. But you have raised up President Trump. You’ve raised him up for such a time as this. And Father, we pray that you’ll give him victory.”
Historians and theologians note a significant omission in this narrative. While the Book of Esther describes a plot against the Jews, the broader biblical record highlights the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great as a liberator. Cyrus is credited with granting the Jews freedom and allowing them to return to Jerusalem from their captivity in Babylon, a legacy still revered by many Iranians today.
This religious framing is mirrored in Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has similarly utilized the Book of Esther and the occasion of Passover to draw parallels between his current military efforts alongside the U.S. And the biblical emancipation of the Jews from Egyptian captivity.
The Return of ‘Crusade’ Rhetoric
The language of “holy war” has historically been a minefield for American presidents. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, George W. Bush famously referred to his campaign against the Taliban as a “crusade.” He quickly backtracked on the term, recognizing that in the Islamic world, the word evokes the violent history of the medieval Crusades rather than a metaphorical struggle for justice.
Though, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has shown no such hesitation. In his 2020 book, American Crusade, Hegseth called for a “holy war” specifically aimed at purging the American left from the country’s political fabric.
Hegseth’s personal iconography further reinforces this alignment with militant religious history. His tattoos include the Jerusalem Cross—a symbol from the Crusader era frequently adopted by far-right movements—and the Latin phrase “Deus Vult,” meaning “God wills it,” which served as the rallying cry for the First Crusade. He bears a tattoo of the Arabic word “kafir,” which translates to “infidel.”
A Clash of Religious Frameworks
The framing of the conflict as a divine struggle is not exclusive to the American side. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian government has been explicitly rooted in religion, led by a Supreme Leader who is a top Shia cleric. For Tehran, the struggle against Western influence is often presented as a religious duty.
The Iranian military frequently draws parallels between its modern defenses and the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE. This battle, in which the Prophet Mohammed’s grandson Hussein was killed, is the central event of Shia martyrdom. By casting their resistance as an act of self-sacrifice in the face of tyranny, the Iranian regime provides its followers with a spiritual justification for conflict that mirrors the “divine mission” rhetoric found in some Trump circles.
This creates a volatile dynamic where both sides view the conflict not as a dispute over borders or treaties, but as a cosmic struggle between opposing spiritual truths.
Comparative Religious Framing of the Conflict
| Perspective | Key Religious Reference | Core Narrative |
|---|---|---|
| Trump Allies | Book of Esther / Crusades | Divine appointment to protect the innocent and defeat a “wicked” regime. |
| Iranian State | Battle of Karbala | Martyrdom and resistance against perceived Western tyranny. |
| Israeli Leadership | Passover / Exodus | Parallel between modern security and the liberation from captivity. |
The Impact on Global Diplomacy
When foreign policy is stripped of its secular, pragmatic goals and recast as a Christian calling, the traditional tools of diplomacy—incentives, sanctions, and negotiated settlements—can become secondary. If a regime is viewed as “wicked” by divine decree, the objective shifts from containment or cooperation to victory and erasure.
For financial markets and global policy analysts, this shift introduces a layer of unpredictability. Strategic decisions based on the “American Crusade” mindset may prioritize symbolic victories and ideological purity over the economic stability of the Persian Gulf or the nuances of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) frameworks.
The presence of religious leaders in the Oval Office, combined with the appointment of officials like Hegseth, suggests that the administration is increasingly comfortable blending national interest with religious nationalism. This approach appeals to a core domestic base but risks further alienating diplomatic partners in the Muslim world who view such rhetoric as a return to the era of the Crusades.
The next critical checkpoint for this trajectory will be the upcoming series of diplomatic reviews regarding Iranian nuclear capabilities and the administration’s formal strategy for regional deterrence, which will reveal whether this theological framing translates into specific policy mandates.
We invite readers to share their perspectives on the intersection of faith and foreign policy in the comments section below.
Keep reading
