Alarm as US, Israel turn up religious rhetoric in war on Iran
Former Pakistani envoy warns language may narrow policy options even as conflict remains strategic
By Akhtar Pathan
KARACHI, Pakistan (MNTV) — The growing use of religious rhetoric by U.S. and Israeli officials and politicians in the context of war on Iran is raising alarm among diplomats and analysts, who warn it risks eroding decades of international norms governing armed conflict.
Pakistan’s former ambassador Sanaullah, who has more than three decades of diplomatic experience, says although religious framing — even fragmented and at informal level — is not a driver and the core decision-making remains strategic (deterrence, security, alliances), he is aware the dangerous turn it can take especially inside evangelical constituencies in the U.S., and religious-nationalist blocs in Israel. “Over time, repeated rhetoric can shape perception, narrowing policy options,” he warns.
Both sides in the war, the U.S.-Israel and Iran, have used religious language and references in the run-up to and amid war. The U.S. side did it unevenly mostly in speeches, internal military contexts, and ideological circles, but not consistently or officially.
Some U.S. military personnel and officials did invoke explicitly religious ideas as according to a watchdog over 200 U.S. service members complained that their commanders described the war as “part of God’s divine plan” and linked it to biblical “end times” and Armageddon, he says.
Some briefings including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reported Pentagon prayer invoked “overwhelming violence” against enemies, blending military action with religious tone. Broader ideological rhetoric explicitly framed the Iranian leadership in theological, religious language and narratives.
They were called “religious fanatics” or driven by “prophetic delusions.” But unlike George W. Bush (after 9/11) war was not even once referred to as Crusade. The U.S. wars are often treated as geopolitical in reality but religious language is sometimes layered on top to build public support, he contends.
Iran and Israel on the contrary framed the war consistently in religious language and symbols. They projected it as a state policy. Iran declared it an Islamic war and called upon Islamic countries to join with them.
Iran war fundamentally geopolitical, not religious
Primarily and essentially, the current U.S.–Israeli war on Iran is all about geopolitical — energy security, deterrence, and regional balance. The story does not end here. Its complexity extends to myths, religion and history. The worst thing is that the fake debate has been added by using AI to navigate hard strategic calculations, he says.
There is more complex interplay between ideology and realpolitik. But the conflict with Iran is fundamentally geopolitical where nuclear deterrence, regional influence, energy routes and religion intersect.
No guarantors for potential Trump deal for Iran
Both Iran and the U.S. want an end to the conflict but on their own terms. The U.S. that had reportedly come up with a 15-point agenda, unacceptable to Iran, is apparently ready to give a face saving to Iran but no deep military and strategic concessions like rebuilding of facilities and enrichment.
“My worry is that Donald Trump is not a reliable negotiator. Even his vice president may not be independent enough to go for a fair deal. No major powers are yet ready to serve as guarantors outside the U.N. system for President Trump’s administration. So it is likely that the war may continue for weeks. But I don’t see a prolonged war running into years with Sunni Arabs embroiled in it physically with troops or active participation.”
Israel may trade “Greater Israel” for recognition
Sanaullah says the “Greater Israel” and strategic intent remains etched in the mind of Israeli leaders. In fact, they have achieved a fair part of it, capturing additional lands in Syria, seizing control over Palestinian lands and West Bank.
From Nile to Euphrates Israel will remain a dream and may not be pursued militarily after Benjamin Netanyahu. There is no support for Israel in the U.S. on this issue. “I think, greater Israel dream will be traded with full recognition by OIC countries without changing the present geography of captured Arab lands.”
Peace and stability is what the Arab countries want, other narratives are rhetoric for domestic politics and larger groups in other Muslim countries. The neighboring states like Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria will take the bitter pill willy-nilly. They have no option especially if Iran is destroyed.
However, a minority believes that a highly devastated Iran would be more dangerous for Israel and for those who make peace with Israel. It depends on how the war ends. The history reflects that an unjust peace sows the seed for another conflict, more destructive in scale.
The Israeli expansionist plan and other ambitions will affect regional alignments and the willingness of Arab states how far they cooperate with Israel. We may witness a different region, with Arabs at peace with Israel. Sooner Israel may even agree to symbolic two states formula and it will help defuse ideological overlay, he foresees.
China, Russia’s delicate management of chaos
China and Russia are not happy. They have shown their resentment in statements. Behind the scenes, they have been sharing intelligence and supplying medicines. Russia is more vocal at bilateral level. But both China and Russia do not want more upheaval in the region. Stability and balance of power suit them and they will strive to achieve that through the U.N. system or mediation.
After the war, China will take longer to supply high tech military equipment to Arab countries. The U.S. will most likely stay put with its military bases in the region without much reduced influence and security cover.
No looming danger of Third World War
“I don’t subscribe to the Third World War scenario. The ongoing Iran war has already engaged UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Turkiye, Azerbaijan and Yemen. Major European powers do not consider it their war. Also, major powers like China and Russia do not feel inclined to risk active participation for Iran to turn the conflict into WW-III.”
We must take charge of our narrative. Research indicates that 92% of their Muslim coverage is negative. Help us change that.
Have Your Say!
Have you been affected by the issues raised in this story? Please share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@soundvision.com.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a Muslim Network TV’s representative. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
Tweet: @MuslimNetworkTV
