War without change: Fundamentalists take over the US military

Officially, the Iran war is, of course, about security, stability, nuclear issues, deterrence, regional order, and all those nice-sounding terms used in press conferences to translate corpses into bureaucratic jargon. Unofficially, however, a somewhat less pleasant suspicion arises: What if this isn't simply cold power politics at work, but rather a fevered belief in the end times, with access to bomber squadrons? Because that's precisely what makes the situation so precarious. Not just that a war is being waged, but perhaps why.

War without change: Fundamentalists take over the US military

There are reports that US military commanders have told their soldiers that the war against Iran is part of God's plan. Not as a metaphor. Not as pep talk for Bible-believing recruits from the Midwest. But as a serious, spiritual briefing with an Armageddon feel. Second Coming of Christ, Revelation, divine plan, signal fire for the end times. Perfectly normal terms when preparing for a military escalation. Other countries call this religious fanaticism. In Washington, it seems to have become a leadership skill.

Things get particularly appetizing when you look at the personnel involved. There's a Faith Office in the White House. The very term sounds like a bad mix of Pentecostal church, lobbying firm, and doomsday startup. It's run by a religious hardliner who publicly spouts pronouncements that sound more like incantations than policy. Then there's the Secretary of Defense, who flaunts fundamentalist Christian symbolism and uses language that should make any secular person instinctively reach for the fire extinguisher.

And then these same people are genuinely surprised when observers start talking about a Christian fundamentalist version of the Taliban. Of course, only with better dental work, more aircraft carriers, and more professional PR.

What's truly disturbing isn't even the piety itself. For millennia, people have believed in all sorts of things. Some in God, others in progress, markets, or the German railway as a functioning infrastructure. Error is part of the human condition. It becomes dangerous when metaphysical fantasies merge with strategic violence. When it's no longer interests, but plans for salvation that guide the hand on the trigger. Because then the nature of war fundamentally changes.

Then it's no longer just about regime change, nuclear programs, or regional dominance. Then war itself becomes the end in itself. Then the clash, the fire, the escalation are needed because they serve as a necessary backdrop for something greater. For the Third Temple. For Armageddon. For the Second Coming of Christ. For the final spectacle that some people apparently await with the same anticipation with which others plan an open-air festival.

And this is precisely where the Third Temple comes into play. Jewish and Christian Zionism have long revolved around this idea. The Temple Mount is not simply a geostrategic location, but a highly charged symbol. The problem: On this symbolically charged ground stands the Al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the holiest sites in Islam. Therefore, anyone who speaks openly about rebuilding the Temple is also, implicitly, about removing what currently stands there. This is the point at which religious fervor rapidly transforms into geopolitical dynamite.

You don't even have to believe every apocalyptic detail to understand how dangerous this way of thinking is. It's enough that influential people believe it. Ideas don't have to be true to produce deaths. It's quite enough if the wrong people take them seriously.

It becomes even more disturbing when this way of thinking isn't merely confined to the minds of a few preachers or ideological front organizations, but presumably extends into parts of the military. When soldiers are presented with biblical narratives in mission briefings, not just geopolitical objectives, then we have a problem that goes far beyond religion. Then it's no longer simply about freedom of belief. Then it's about the takeover of the state's apparatus of power by an apocalyptic logic.

In other words, the West has been telling the world for years how dangerous theocratic systems are, while it may itself be in the process of carrying out a Christian-disguised, apocalyptic project with air support. A striking irony. Almost a work of art.

And Europe? Once again, Europe is playing the role for which it has qualified with admirable consistency: that of the hypocritical sidekick. It offers measured criticism of the "expansion" of the conflict, assigns primary blame for the escalation to Iran, and speaks of stability, while these same Western structures are feeding their bases, alliances, and narratives into the war. This is that particular EU art form: pointing with an innocent gaze at the fire that it itself has previously framed with kerosene.

Ultimately, a disturbing possibility remains: perhaps this war is not so dangerous because it seems irrational, but precisely because it makes sense to some of its instigators for that very reason. Not despite its madness, but because of it. Not as a misguided development, but as a fulfillment. Not as a means, but as a mission.

And if that's true, then the usual geopolitical analysis is no longer sufficient. Then we're no longer talking about raison d'état, but about disclosure management with missile support.

The United States often refers to Iran as a theocratic threat.
Perhaps now would be a good moment to look in the mirror.

Netanyahu invokes the Torah to portray Iran as Amalek. He has also cited it in connection with Gaza. Mike Huckabee says Israel can claim the entire Middle East because the Bible promised it. But according to Marco Rubio, it is Iran that is waging a war based on a dangerous theology…