Christian ethics: Three most recent justifications and explanations for the war on Iran

Holy war theology is used to legitimise and motivate the war

In my postgraduate academic theological studies I specialised in biblical ethics. In the political ethics course I ended up doing a dissertation on Christians and Violence - Comparing Holy War theology, Just War theology, and Jesus’ ethic of non-violent peacemaking, commonly called pacifism. For the first three centuries, Christians practiced Jesus’ way of no violence, no participation in ‘the army’ or war, till Constantine turned Christianity into “Christendom”, the early form of Christian Nationalism. My paper was published in a theological journal.

This is simply to say, I am very aware of given reasons to legitimise the war on Iran.

Two days ago, three explanations made headlines...

First, Hegseth’s War Dept motivated the Iranian War as the holy war of Armageddon. Independent journalist Jonathan Larsen reported,

“U.S. troops were told Iran war Is for Armageddon, the return of Jesus. Advocacy group said commanders were framing Iran war as ‘God’s divine plan’, allegedly claiming President Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus” to ignite Armageddon. The complaint, filed with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), is one of more than 110 logged within 48 hours from over 40 units across at least 30 installations. Complainants, including Christians, a Muslim, and a Jew, have requested anonymity to avoid retaliation.”

Service members reported “unrestricted euphoria” among segments of the chain of command portraying the assault on Iran as biblically sanctioned and tied to end-times prophecy in the Book of Revelation. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth expands overt evangelical programming within the Pentagon, including prayer sessions and Bible studies aligned with staunch pro-Israel theology.

Larsen’s posted the full statement from MRFF President, Mikey Weinstein. Reports came in that many US commanders appear particularly enthused by the prospect of an intensely violent confrontation, believing it’s necessary to align events with a fundamentalist Christian end-times narrative. Weinstein concluded his report with: “Secretary ‘Kegseth’ is trying to order… military subordinates to acknowledge that the Iran war has been sanctioned by the fundamentalist Christian nationalist version of our Lord and Savior and the New Testament in specific order to bring about the end of the world and usher in the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ.”

For Hegseth and his holy US warriors, this is a holy crusade against Islamic Iran. The Crusades were the darkest period of Church history, where ‘Christian soldiers’ blazoned with red crosses massacred multitudes of Jews and Muslims in the Name of the Lord.

Read Larsen’s whole article and Weinstein’s report here:

Second, Netanyahu said in an interview video clip that if Iran has nuclear weapons all the world is threatened, not only Israel. “Therefore, we went out to push away this danger from us, with the US, and for sake of all humanity… We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you. We remember and we acted.” (The reading was 1 Samuel 15:3, “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”)

After invoking Amalek ahead of and repeatedly during the destruction of Gaza, to motivate his troops, Netanyahu is openly using the command to destroy Amalek again to justify and motivate the war on Iran. This particular Torah reading is at the Feast Purim (2-3 March), which celebrates the deliverance of the Jewish people from the wicked Haman, the Persian who wanted to kill all the Jews in Persia (Iran).

This is pure Old Testament Holy War theology that legitimises genocide.

Third, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s explanation behind the US-Israel war on Iran went like this:

Rubio: “It was a preemptive attack on Iran”

Pentagon person: “No sign that Iran was going to attack first?”

Rubio: “No, but if Israel attacked Iran, then Iran would have attacked us, so we preemptively attacked them first… The president made the very wise decision—we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

His logics are: 1) Israel was going to attack Iran, 2) The U.S. knew Israel was going to ‘illegally’ attack Iran, 3) Instead of restraining Israel, the U.S. joined Israel in ‘illegally’ attacking Iran, 4) with the justification that they “had” to, because they felt Iran might attack back.

So, this wasn’t about negotiations, nuclear enrichment, freedom, or regime change, etc? Was it about striking first because the country being illegally attacked might have attacked back in retaliation?

What an utter mess! God help us! And all this is in the name of Jesus and HaShem!