Pakistan’s right to self-defence and Pashtun-centric politics

Editorial 

By invoking religion to frame a modern war, the United States risks crossing a line that history has repeatedly shown to be catastrophic.

Recent statements and policy directions emerging from Washington suggest that the U.S.-Israel war against Iran is being cast not merely as a geopolitical conflict, but as something far more troubling: a religious war (crusade)

Reporting by Chris Cameron (The New York Times, April 6, 2026) reveals how senior U.S. leadership has infused overtly Christian symbolism into the narrative of war. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s comparison of a rescued American airman to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ—complete with references to Good Friday, the tomb, and Easter Sunday—was not an isolated rhetorical flourish. It was followed by President Donald Trump’s assertion that “God supports the American war against Iran” because “God is good.”

This language is not neutral. It transforms a war into a moral absolution project, where military action is framed as divinely sanctioned. When the head of state suggests that God endorses a bombing campaign that has already killed thousands, including civilians, it ceases to be mere political messaging—it becomes theological justification for violence.

Even more concerning is Hegseth’s ideological positioning. As Cameron notes, Hegseth has previously called for prayers for victory “in the name of Jesus Christ,” and openly embraces Crusader symbolism, including the phrase “Deus vult” (“God wills it”)—a slogan historically associated with medieval wars against Muslims. His writings in American Crusade further reinforce a worldview that frames conflict with Muslim-majority regions in civilizational and religious terms.

Such framing aligns dangerously with a strain of Christian nationalist thought that conflates American power with divine mission. In this worldview, geopolitical conflict is no longer about strategy or security—it becomes a religious duty. The Oval Office, in effect, begins to resemble a pulpit, issuing moral decrees rather than policy decisions.

Yet, even within Christianity, this narrative is deeply contested. As Cameron reports, Pope Leo XIV has sharply criticized attempts to justify war through religion, warning that Christianity’s mission has often been “distorted by a desire for domination.” This internal dissent underscores a critical point: the appropriation of faith for war is not only dangerous—it is theologically contested.

Parallel reporting by Paul McLeary and Leo Shane III (Politico, April 6, 2026) adds another dimension to this crisis.

The Pentagon’s evolving strategy—expanding targets to include dual-use infrastructure such as energy facilities—raises serious legal and ethical concerns. While officials argue these targets fall within the bounds of international law, the reality is stark: such strikes risk devastating civilian life.

President Trump’s own rhetoric amplifies these fears. His threat that “every bridge in Iran will be decimated” and that power plants would be “burning, exploding and never to be used again” signals a willingness to blur the line between military and civilian targets. His dismissal of concerns—claiming Iranians would “welcome” such suffering—reveals a troubling detachment from humanitarian realities.

The convergence of these two strands—religious justification and expanded targeting doctrine—creates a deeply alarming picture. When war is framed as divinely endorsed, the national restraints imposed by law, ethics, and public accountability begin to erode. Civilian suffering becomes collateral not just strategically, but morally rationalized.

This is precisely why international norms, including the Geneva Conventions, exist: to prevent the descent of warfare into unchecked destruction justified by ideology or belief. As Politico’s reporting highlights, even within the Pentagon there are concerns about where the line should be drawn. The dismantling of oversight mechanisms under Hegseth only deepens these risks.

To describe this moment as a transformation toward a “crusade-like” framing is not rhetorical exaggeration—it is an evidence-based observation. The language, symbolism, and policy direction all point toward a war increasingly couched in religious terms, particularly against a Muslim-majority nation.

This trajectory is not just dangerous for Iran or the Middle East, it is dangerous for the global order and unfortunately some Middle Eastern Muslim states are directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously supporting this religious war mania against Muslims

History has shown that wars framed as holy struggles are among the most brutal, intractable, and destabilizing. They close doors to diplomacy, demonize entire populations, and justify excess in the name of righteousness.

The United States has long positioned itself as a defender of international law and pluralism. That credibility is now at risk, and everybody is remembering that how United States designed a Crusade against Infidels of former Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the brunt of this project had been paid by the whole world, particularly Pakistan that played frontline support of United States in that Jihad (religious war). If now ME countries would keep supporting United States in this new Crusade, they must not have forgot bitter fruits Pakistan is still chewing.

If faith is to play any role, it should be as a force for restraint, compassion, and peace not as a justification for bombs.

The world is watching not just what America does, but how it explains what it does. And right now, the explanation is as troubling as the war itself.

War must remain grounded in legal frameworks and strategic necessity not elevated into a cosmic battle between good and evil.