The Guardian recently reported that “U.S. military commanders have been invoking extremist Christian rhetoric about biblical ‘end times’ to justify involvement in the Iran war to troops.” The source of the report was the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), which received numerous complaints from service members regarding their deployment for the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. They were told that this was “all part of God’s divine plan” and that the destruction of Iran would help bring about “Armageddon” and “the imminent return of Jesus Christ.” The rhetoric was unmistakably reminiscent of former U.S. President George W. Bush’s, as when he revealed that God had ordered him to “smite the enemy,” referring to the brutal invasion of Iraq.
This extremist Judeo-Christian rhetoric has certainly been in abundance more than ever, though the talk of “bringing about Armageddon” is hardly confined to its bounds. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finally confessed that he had longed for this moment “for 40 years.” The religious significance of the moment had already been explained by a CNN article: “The timing of the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran bears symbolic meaning in Judaism. Ahead of the upcoming Jewish holiday of Purim, worshippers read the specific portion from the Old Testament, known as Zachor.” Importantly, the author of the article noted that “the passage is read publicly before Purim to fulfil the mitzvah of remembering Amalek as Israel’s archetypical enemy.” The subsequent killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei alongside his family has been similarly described in this “extremist Jewish rhetoric.”
Sadly, this kind of extremist religious rhetoric is increasingly common among U.S. decision-makers, whose decisions, however, seem to have already been made for them by their Israeli friends. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s revealing comment that the U.S. was forced to get involved in the initial attack because Israel was about to strike Iran anyway was certainly not the first, but arguably the clearest manifestation of the true dynamics of this “special” friendship. It is no surprise that neither Americans nor Israelis shy away from invoking extremist religious rhetoric in their justification for death and destruction, in which they both rejoice.
Indeed, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth spoke with such clarity that there could be no more doubt about the real objectives of the war hidden behind the veil of religious rhetoric. In fitting with his infamous “infidel” tattoo in Arabic, and perhaps as a stick to “Muslims” as he perceived them, he showed in his brief how tough he felt bringing upon Iran “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” He used to pose almost as tough in his energetic appearances on national television when he was a regular contributor to Fox News. Hegseth has always been known for his indulgence in extremist religious rhetoric, with his book “American Crusade” exemplifying how seriously he takes the central tenets of his faith.
The wars for Hegseth’s faith of “death and destruction from the sky” were not only fought against “Muslims” as they are apparently being fought today (that is, if we take the rhetoric seriously), but have throughout the decades been waged against the peoples of all faiths and none. Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutierrez’s liberation theology was deemed inferior to the “liberating theology” of the empire, all the same. When the empire serves Israel, the target is so often a caricature of a Muslim. From the infamously bloodthirsty U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham calling Iran’s government “modern day religious Nazis,” to the fanatical Israel supporter Fox News host Mark Levin expressing his distrust of the “Ayatollahs of Iran” on the basis that “their goals are rooted in a theological mission that began 1,400 years ago,” the rhetoric is primarily designed to foment that negative image. Whether it is actually effective or not is entirely irrelevant.
Rhetoric is rhetoric, but reality is much simpler. What “the axis of empire” (also the title of a very relevant book) is doing pre-emptively is not only launching war, but also casting it in terms of “good and evil.” The use of terminology must be pre-empted, for otherwise the hideous murder of more than 160 schoolgirls in one precision strike would easily disqualify anyone from claiming to be on the side of good rather than evil.
