THE war has become even more complex.
Iran has never been ashamed of its faith. The United States, however, which long criticized Iran for bringing religion into the sphere of state and politics, now appears compelled to seek support from religion itself. Donald Trump invited Christian pastors to the White House to offer prayers. The US Secretary of Defence has also been seen reading prayers from the Bible. As for Benjamin Netanyahu, there has never been much doubt about his standing as a hardline Zionist. What is perplexing, however, are the scenes emerging from the United States.
Does this suggest the same thing that George W. Bush implied after the events of 9/11—namely, a crusade? At least on the surface, it appears so. Human beings cannot escape their nature. No matter how much they try to conceal it, eventually it reveals itself. It seems that when the results of the war he initiated did not unfold according to his expectations, Donald Trump’s nerves cracked and his secular posture collapsed. Consequently, he felt compelled to seek prayers, a step that his Secretary of Defense also deemed necessary to follow. Netanyahu did something similar, though his case is somewhat different.
The attempt by the United States and Israel to give wars a religious colouring is not new. After the attacks of 9/11, George W. Bush used the term “crusade.” Even earlier, President Ronald Reagan had spoken in a similar tone. Addressing a church gathering, Reagan once referred to a prophecy suggesting that at least two hundred million soldiers would come from the East—meaning the Muslim world—while millions would represent the forces of the West. After the revival of the Roman Empire, Jesus Christ would descend and confront those eastern armies that had, in this narrative, desecrated Jerusalem.
Whether it is Reagan’s prophecy, Bush’s reference to crusades or the recent prayers by Donald Trump and his Defence Secretary, these developments appear to resonate with predictions often discussed by Muslim scholars, particularly the late Dr. Israr Ahmad. Dr. Israr frequently argued that the stage had already been set for the events that would precede the end times. In Jewish traditions, this ultimate confrontation is described as Armageddon, while in Islamic traditions it is known as al-Malhama al-Uzma, the Great Battle. Is this truly what we are witnessing? Statements by certain Christian and Jewish leaders seem to lend some support to this idea, though other signs and developments also complicate the picture.
For the first ten days of the war, Donald Trump repeatedly threatened Iran with dire consequences—threats that could easily be interpreted as warnings of Iran’s destruction. Yet on the eleventh day he declared that the war was almost over. This announcement came around the same time as his conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Such a coincidence might suggest that Trump is searching for a way to disengage from the conflict. In political language, this is often described as a search for “face-saving.”
A similar voice has emerged from Israel, indicating that it does not desire an unlimited war. This statement also suggests that Israel, which imposed this aggression upon Iran, may likewise be seeking an exit from the conflict. If that is the case, it implies that Iran’s resistance has shaken Israeli confidence.
Of course, both interpretations—the idea of an approaching Armageddon and the possibility of a retreat from war—remain speculative. They are only estimates. The difficulty is that neither Donald Trump nor Israel inspires much trust. Since the conflict that began last June, both powers have repeatedly resorted to deception. It would not be surprising if they attempted to do so again. The real question is: what form might that deception take?
This is a troubling possibility, and even discussing it evokes fear. Experts in warfare and international affairs believe the conflict may not end easily through diplomacy or negotiations but possibly through some unforeseen incident. Analysts are thus trying to interpret signals from Israel and the United States. One such signal came from Israel, suggesting a “surprise” for Iran is being prepared—potentially making Iran–U.S. relations more agreeable. Observers of history see this as a veiled reference to a nuclear strike, reminiscent of the atomic attacks on Japan in World War II, after which Japan unilaterally accepted defeat and eventually developed friendly ties with the United States.
Is the United States truly contemplating a nuclear strike against Iran? If that is the case, it would be a profound tragedy. Not merely a tragedy but a grave catastrophe. The United States argues that countries like Iran cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons because they are irresponsible and pose a danger to the world. Yet if the same United States were to present the world with another “gift” in the form of a nuclear attack, what would that be if not the classic case of preaching virtue while practicing the opposite?
On the other side stands Iran. After the martyrdom of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s political system moved swiftly and smoothly to appoint a new Supreme Leader, Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei. Many observers consider him a hardliner, creating the impression that the war could intensify under his leadership. That may indeed happen. Yet one of the defining qualities of great leaders is their ability to steer their nations away from certain destruction during the most difficult moments. It is possible that Iran’s new leader will seek precisely that balance—preserving the country’s dignity while protecting his people from the worst consequences of this crisis. Ultimately, our hope and prayer should be that not only Iran but the entire world is spared from catastrophe.
—This writer is former advisor to the President of Pakistan, author & mass media theorist.
(farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)
