The latest war that erupted following the Israeli and American attack on Iran is not merely a military confrontation. It is also a psychological war conducted through meanings, symbols, and sacred references.
What drew attention in the statements issued during the first hours of this war, which the two states ignited by violating the established rules of conventional warfare, is that the conflict is not framed solely through the lens of security and deterrence. It is also being shaped through theological signals.
For many observers, this is hardly surprising. The very 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 approach. While secularism is imposed upon the world as a rigid system, much of their own conduct continues to unfold under the shadow of their sacred texts.
The international order they helped construct after the First World War and the conflicts that followed can, in essence, be seen as a stage upon which the scenario outlined in their sacred writings is enacted.
On this stage, friend and enemy are defined in ways that serve this belief system, and roles are distributed within their worldview according to this theological logic. This framework explains why certain developments unfold in ways that appear unexpected and difficult for many observers to comprehend.
On the surface, the war appears to be proceeding in accordance with the familiar theories of international relations. Various international actors, often in good faith, are moving toward mediation efforts, issuing calls for restraint and rationality, and pointing toward diplomatic solutions.
Yet the situation contains an entirely different dimension that the dominant theories of international relations have largely overlooked. Many analyses have not even acknowledged its existence, perhaps because accepting it requires confronting a reality that is difficult for many to believe.
The Saudi scholar Abdullah al Muhaysini draws attention to a key point. Strategic logic dictates that a party engaged in war typically seeks to reduce the number of battlefronts rather than expand them.
Al Muhaysini raises the following question: why would Tehran target Gulf states despite knowing that doing so will create additional pressure and open new arenas of confrontation?
In reality, it is difficult to argue that Iran itself is acting with complete rationality in this war. At times, its religious justifications appear stronger than its rational calculations. Yet even if Iran seems influenced by religious considerations, this influence does not reach the level evident in Israel’s conduct.
It is equally difficult to claim that Israel’s primary motive in this war is simply to create a safer environment for its survival. In the end, a solid security wall can only be 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 adversarial fronts and accumulating resentment and anger among populations across the region. This is a reality easily observed through any rational political analysis.
Could it be that Israel and the United States are unaware of the consequences of such actions? That is highly unlikely. Yet this very question leads to a different conclusion: the forces driving this war appear less rational than they are theological and emotional.
Religious historical references in Israeli political discourse have become increasingly explicit in recent statements. The repeated reference to “Amalek” in Zionist wartime rhetoric, particularly in the statements of Benjamin Netanyahu, may initially appear symbolic. In the political context, however, it signals the classification of the other side as an existential enemy.
The story of Amalek mentioned in the Tanakh forms part of a historical religious narrative. Yet invoking it in contemporary politics serves the function of labelling the opposing side as an absolute enemy with whom no reconciliation is possible. This is not a random choice. There is a profound difference between describing an adversary as a “security threat” and presenting it as the embodiment of historical evil.
From this theological perspective, the killing of 165 female students during the first operation carried out by the American-Israeli coalition under the claim of liberating Iran from the rule of the clerics aligns with the concept of Amalek as an enemy defined through a theological vision.
Some Iranians who oppose the ruling system believed that the United States might deliver them from it. What has occurred should serve as a stark warning. The United States and Israel do not act to rescue any people from oppression. One acts when doing so aligns with its theological justifications, and the other when it finds strategic benefit in doing so. In such cases, the destruction that follows often far exceeds the gains they claim to achieve.
Even if theological visions guide the course of events, religious texts themselves are subject to interpretation. Interpretations are shaped by interests, calculations, and distortions. The blame does not lie with the sacred text itself, which in reality is entirely innocent of such manipulation.
Such rhetoric narrows the space for negotiation and moves war beyond limited objectives into the realm of the sacred. Conflicts that carry existential and metaphysical meanings are extremely difficult to end. The issue is no longer confined to strategic interests but has become bound to the demands of a sacred narrative.
It should also be noted that certain voices in the United States portray Iran as “a regime ruled by extremist clerics who make decisions based on theological visions of the end of the world”.
This narrative serves two purposes simultaneously. On the one hand, it labels Iran as an irrational actor, thereby legitimising harsh intervention. On the other hand, it shifts the conflict beyond the secular geopolitical framework into the domain of theological confrontation.
Yet these same actors attempt to conceal their own motivations, which are clearly theological and arguably more extreme than those attributed to Iran. Regardless of attempts to disguise them, the war has already moved beyond a conventional struggle over influence and has become a confrontation between ideological systems. In doing so, Israel and the United States provoke the wider Muslim world, which includes nearly two billion Muslims.
An examination of Iran’s conduct over the past four decades suggests that despite its sectarian and religious policies within parts of the Muslim world, it has pursued a carefully calculated foreign policy toward the West, balancing costs and benefits despite its ideological rhetoric.
Patterns such as the use of proxy forces, the avoidance of direct war, and adherence to economic constraints make it difficult to classify Iran as an irrational actor driven purely by religious motives. However, when the opposing side frames the conflict in theological terms, the rational space inevitably shrinks.
This theological framework also invites a different interpretation of Iran’s retaliatory actions against Gulf states. If the language of the opposing side has elevated the war to an existential level, then any Iranian retreat would not be perceived merely as a military defeat but as a symbolic collapse.
Within this context, expanding the conflict becomes a strategy aimed at spreading its costs globally. Targeting the Gulf sends a message through the arteries of global energy: the price of this war will not remain confined to its immediate battlefield.
In this climate, the escalation that recently occurred between Afghanistan and Pakistan deserves particular attention. Border tensions between the two countries are not new. Their roots lie in a dispute seeded by the British during their withdrawal from the region. Yet the timing of this issue resurfacing now carries exceptional significance.
At a moment when the world is preoccupied with a war in the Middle East infused with theological meanings, opening such a front between two Sunni Muslim states may distract attention. It may also serve a deeper function. Situations of this nature create room for manoeuvre by major powers and contribute to a more complex security structure by linking regional crises together.
Pakistan’s fragile internal situation and Afghanistan’s ongoing efforts to stabilise after regaining its independence and defeating its adversary while attempting to rebuild state institutions and revive its economy may transform such escalation into a matter extending beyond the two countries, potentially tying it to the wider confrontation between Iran, Israel, and the United States.
Naturally, it cannot be asserted with certainty that this situation represents a directed operation against what Netanyahu once described as the “Sunni axis” during his meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Such a claim would rely on an implausible assumption that Afghanistan might move against Pakistan on behalf of India, Israel, and the United States.
This assumption clashes with a clear religious motivation that makes such alignment impossible within the worldview of the Taliban movement.
It should be noted that the dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan is not an insoluble issue. In this regard, mediation by Türkiye and Qatar could contribute to resolving the matter.
Returning to the attacks carried out by Israel and the United States against Iran, it is also worth noting that the intense debate surrounding the “Epstein files” within American political circles has introduced another dimension to the issue. Allegations of connections reaching into political elites deepen the crisis of confidence within the system itself.
Historically, major external crises have often overshadowed intense domestic disputes. This is not always a deliberate strategy, yet the timing of events highlights the degree to which foreign policy intertwines with internal political agendas. As domestic pressures intensify, the inclination toward harsher foreign policies may also grow.
This dynamic is not necessarily connected to theological perceptions but rather to the balance of internal political forces. Yet if the Epstein network were indeed linked to intelligence structures such as the Mossad, it would be difficult to argue that such connections are entirely separate from the broader ideological and theological environment.
Even if theological visions shape the direction of events, religious texts remain open to interpretation by those who claim to explain them. These interpretations often emerge from interests, calculations, and distortions. The sacred text itself bears no responsibility for such manipulations.
This platform runs on funding from the Ummah & Our Community.
