The recent war that erupted following the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran is not merely a military confrontation. It is also a psychological war conducted through meanings, symbols, and sacred references.
What stands out in the statements issued during the first hours of this war, which the two states ignited by violating the established norms of conventional warfare, is that the conflict is not framed solely through the lens of security and deterrence. It is also expressed through theological signals.
For many observers, this is hardly surprising. The reason for Israel’s existence and the nature of its conduct have never truly departed from the framework of its theological prophecies. This has long been their pattern in dealing with others. While they impose secularism upon the world as an unyielding constraint, they themselves often operate under the shelter of their sacred texts.
The international order established after the First World War and the conflicts that followed can, in essence, be viewed as a stage upon which the script written in those sacred texts is gradually performed.
Within this theatre, the definitions of friend and enemy have been constructed in ways that serve this belief system. According to that theological logic, roles have been distributed throughout the world they helped shape. This situation largely explains why certain events develop in ways that many find unexpected or difficult to accept.
On the surface, the war appears to unfold according to familiar theories of international relations. Various international actors, often in good faith, rush to offer mediation, call for restraint and reason, or point towards diplomatic pathways.
Yet the issue carries an entirely different dimension. This dimension has largely been overlooked by prevailing theories and analyses in international relations. Many scholars have not even acknowledged its existence, perhaps because accepting it is difficult to believe.
Saudi jurist Abdullah al Muhaysini has drawn attention to the fact that logic and strategic reasoning normally dictate that a state engaged in war attempts to reduce the number of battlefronts rather than expand them.
He raises a question in this context: why would Tehran target Gulf states, knowing that such actions would inevitably generate additional pressure and open new arenas of conflict?
In reality, it is also difficult to claim that Iran is behaving with complete rationality in this war. At times, its religious justifications appear stronger than its purely rational calculations. Nevertheless, even if Iran may act under the influence of religious considerations, it has not reached the level demonstrated by Israel.
It is equally difficult to argue that Israel’s primary motivation in this war is simply the creation of a safer environment to protect its state. In the end, a durable security wall is built by increasing allies and reducing enemies.
What we are witnessing, however, is that Israel and the United States are expanding the number of their adversaries and accumulating layers of anger and resentment among populations across the world. This reality is easily observed through any rational political analysis.
Could it be that Israel and the United States fail to recognise the consequences of such actions? That seems impossible. Yet this very question leads to another conclusion: the motives driving this war may not be purely rational, but rather theological and emotional.
Theological References in Israeli War Discourse
Religious and historical references invoked within Israeli political discourse have become increasingly visible in recent statements. Repeated references to “Amalek” within Zionist wartime rhetoric, particularly in statements by Benjamin Netanyahu, may initially appear symbolic. Yet within a political context, such language categorises the opposing side as an existential enemy.
The story of Amalek mentioned in the Tanakh forms part of a historical religious narrative. When invoked within contemporary political discourse, however, it functions to portray the opposing party as an absolute enemy with whom reconciliation is impossible. This is not a random choice of language. There is a vast difference between describing a rival as a “security threat” and portraying them as the embodiment of historical evil.
From this deeply ideological theological perspective, the killing of 165 female students during the first operation carried out by the US Israeli coalition under the pretext of liberating Iran from the rule of the clerics aligns with the concept of Amalek as an enemy defined by theological imagination.
If some Iranian factions opposed to the government believed that the United States would free them from its authority, what occurred should serve as a stark warning. The United States and Israel do not act to rescue peoples from oppression. One moves when such actions align with theological justifications, while the other acts when it serves its interests. In both cases, the destruction produced often far exceeds the supposed gains they claim to achieve.
War Beyond Strategy
If theological perceptions indeed shape the course of events, it must also be acknowledged that religious texts are interpreted by individuals who provide their own interpretations. This process of interpretation unfolds according to interests, calculations, and distortions. The blame, however, does not lie with the religious text itself, which in reality remains entirely innocent of such manipulations.
Such rhetoric narrows the space for negotiation and pushes war beyond the realm of limited objectives into a sacred domain. Conflicts framed in existential or metaphysical terms are extremely difficult to end. The issue ceases to revolve solely around strategic interests and becomes tied to the requirements of a sacred narrative.
Some actors in the United States portray Iran as a regime governed by extremist clerics who make decisions based on apocalyptic theological visions.
This narrative serves two purposes simultaneously. On one hand, it labels Iran as an irrational actor, thereby legitimising harsher intervention. On the other, it shifts the conflict from the secular geopolitical framework into the realm of theological confrontation.
Yet these same actors attempt to conceal their own motivations, which are also theological and arguably even more extreme. Regardless of how much they attempt to obscure this reality, the war has already moved beyond a conventional struggle for influence and has transformed into a confrontation between ideological systems. Through this approach, Israel and the United States provoke the entire Islamic world, which encompasses nearly two billion Muslims.
Iran’s Strategic Calculations
An examination of Iran’s conduct over the past four decades reveals that despite its sectarian and religious policies within the Islamic world, its relations with Western states have been managed with calculated precision. Despite its ideological rhetoric, Tehran has often pursued a foreign policy built upon balancing costs and gains.
Patterns such as the use of proxy forces, the avoidance of direct large scale warfare, and adherence to certain economic constraints make it difficult to categorise Iran as an irrational actor driven solely by religious motives. However, when the opposing side elevates the conflict to a theological level in its discourse, the space for rational calculation inevitably shrinks.
This theological framework also shapes how Iran’s retaliatory operations against Gulf states are interpreted. If the language used by its adversaries has transformed the conflict into an existential struggle, any Iranian retreat would not merely be seen as a military defeat but as a symbolic collapse.
Within this context, expanding the scope of the conflict becomes a strategy aimed at distributing its cost globally. Targeting Gulf states therefore sends a message through the arteries of global energy: the cost of this war will not remain confined to its immediate battlefield.
Regional Tensions and Strategic Timing
In this climate, the recent escalation between Afghanistan and Pakistan demands attention. Border tensions between the two countries are not new. They trace their origins to a dispute rooted in divisions created by British colonial policy during their withdrawal from the region. Yet the timing of this issue resurfacing carries particular significance.
At a moment when the world is preoccupied with a war in the Middle East containing theological dimensions, the opening of another front between two Sunni Muslim states diverts global attention. At the same time, it may serve a broader function by providing strategic manoeuvring space for major powers and creating a more complex security architecture through the linkage of regional crises.
Pakistan’s internal fragility, combined with Afghanistan’s ongoing challenges as it seeks to rebuild institutions and strengthen its economy after regaining independence and defeating its adversary, could allow such escalation to evolve into an issue extending beyond the borders of the two countries. It may even become entangled with the broader conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States.
It cannot be definitively claimed that this situation is linked to an operation targeting what Netanyahu described during his meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the “Sunni axis”. Such a conclusion would rest upon an illogical assumption that Afghanistan might move against Pakistan in alignment with India, Israel, and the United States.
This assumption collides with the clear religious orientation that makes such alignment inconceivable within the framework of the Taliban movement.
Possibilities for Mediation
The dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan is not an unsolvable problem. In this regard, mediation led by Türkiye and Qatar could contribute to resolving the issue.
Returning to the scene of the attacks carried out by Israel and the United States against Iran, it is worth noting that the intense debate surrounding the “Epstein files” within American political circles has added another dimension to the matter. Allegations of connections reaching into political elites deepen the crisis of trust surrounding the political system.
Historically, major external crises have often overshadowed intense domestic disputes. This is not always a deliberate strategy, yet the coincidence of events highlights the deep entanglement between foreign policy and domestic political agendas. As internal pressures intensify, the tendency towards harsher foreign policy positions may increase.
This dynamic is not directly related to theological perceptions but is instead tied to internal political balances. However, if the Epstein case indeed involved a network dominated by Mossad, it becomes difficult to claim that such developments are entirely disconnected from the broader ideological frameworks discussed earlier.
Finally, even if theological visions influence the direction of events, religious texts themselves remain subject to interpretation by those who claim authority over them. These interpretations often reflect interests, calculations, and distortions. The responsibility does not lie with the religious text itself, which in reality stands entirely free from such misuse.
This platform runs on funding from the Ummah & Our Community.
