U.S. military rhetoric frames Iran conflict through apocalyptic theology, reinforcing geopolitical narratives
Original framing: “Why is the conflict with Iran being framed as a ‘holy war’?” — Al Jazeera
The use of apocalyptic language to justify war has deep historical roots, from the Crusades to the American Civil War. In the U.S.-Iran context, it echoes Cold War-era rhetoric that framed global conflict in moral and ideological terms.
The framing of the U.S.-Iran conflict as a 'holy war' is a strategic use of religious rhetoric to justify military action and mobilize public support.
This narrative obscures the complex geopolitical and economic interests at play, including U.S. control over energy resources and regional influence. By drawing on historical patterns of religiously framed conflict, such as the Crusades and the American Civil War, we can see how such language has been used to legitimize violence. Cross-culturally, the use of apocalyptic language to justify war is a recurring theme, often serving the interests of powerful actors while marginalizing local populations. To move toward peace, it is essential to integrate marginalized voices, deconstruct harmful narratives, and promote inclusive diplomacy that addresses the structural causes of conflict.