The Illusion of the Religious Legitimation of a U.S. War Against Iran (A Theological Critique)
By Mohammad Hossein Mokhtari, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Vatican
In the discourse of certain American policymakers—particularly at the highest levels of decision-making—there is a discernible tendency to employ religious language and concepts to justify aggressive military actions. This discourse, through notions such as “moral mission,” “defense of divine values,” and “the struggle against evil,” seeks to elevate war from the level of a political act to that of a sacred undertaking. Within such a framework, war is no longer presented as a contestable choice, but rather as a moral—and even divine—necessity, thereby implicitly constraining the possibility of critical evaluation.
According to published reports, within political circles close to the administration of Donald Trump, certain statements have framed the prospect of war against Iran in terms of a confrontation between “good and evil” or between “a desirable order and forces that threaten it” (Reuters, 2026). Media analyses further indicate that among some evangelical Christian movements, this confrontation has been linked to particular interpretations of sacred texts and even to apocalyptic scenarios (The Guardian, 2026). From the standpoint of political philosophy, such representations may be understood as a form of the “sacralization of politics,” wherein the boundary between the divine and human will becomes obscured.
In contrast to this discourse, the position of Pope Leo XIV is of particular significance. As the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, he speaks not only from a religious perspective but also from the standpoint of global ethics. In his Palm Sunday address, he explicitly declared: “God does not accept the prayers of those who wage war; their hands are stained with blood” (Reuters, 2026). This statement clearly rejects any association between prayer—as a religious act—and war—as an act of violence.
Moreover, he emphasized that “God is a God of peace, not a God of war,” warning that invoking the name of God to justify violence constitutes a distortion of religion (Washington Post, 2026). This position represents, in essence, a return to the core of Christian teachings, in which peace is not a secondary option but a foundational principle. Within this framework, the Pope underscores that authentic prayer cannot serve violence, for prayer, by its very nature, calls for reconciliation, forgiveness, and the restoration of human relationships. This perspective is rooted in a profound theological tradition. In the Gospels, Jesus Christ not only rejects violence but also emphasizes love and forgiveness even toward one’s enemies. The commandment “love your enemies” (Gospel of Matthew 5:44) demonstrates that Christianity challenges violence not only at the level of action but also at the level of intention and disposition. Consequently, any attempt to legitimize war— especially aggressive war—stands in tension with the internal structure of these teachings. From a theoretical standpoint, this tension may be analyzed within the framework of a critique of political theology. When politics speaks in the language of religion, there arises a risk that religion will be instrumentalized to consolidate power. In such a condition, religious concepts are emptied of their authentic meaning and placed in the service of political objectives. The Pope’s statements stand precisely against this tendency; by drawing a clear distinction between faith and violence, he seeks to rescue religion from such instrumentalization. A logical critique of this discourse can be articulated on several levels. First, attributing war to divine will is epistemologically unfounded, lacking any objective criteria and resembling an unfalsifiable claim. Second, such an assertion contradicts Christian texts and tradition, in which violence is not accepted as a legitimate means of achieving religious ends. Third, this approach undermines moral responsibility; by attributing human actions to God, it diminishes accountability. Even within the framework of the “just war theory” in Christian theology—developed by thinkers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas—war is permissible only under highly restrictive conditions. These include legitimate defense, last resort, and proportionality in the use of force. According to assessments by certain Church authorities, a war against Iran does not meet these criteria (The Guardian, 2026). Thus, even within a framework that conditionally permits war, such a conflict cannot be justified. From a moral and human perspective, the religious legitimation of war carries profound consequences. It may normalize violence and aggression, intensify religious divisions, and erode universal ethical standards. When war is waged in the name of God, not only are its victims—often civilians and children—overlooked, but the very concept of religion itself is damaged.
Ultimately, the position of Pope Leo XIV represents not merely a reaction to a particular political situation, but a principled defense of the proper relationship between religion and ethics. By emphasizing peace, human dignity, and moral responsibility, this stance demonstrates that religion, when properly understood, is not a tool for justifying war but a force for restraining it. In conclusion, what emerges with greater clarity is not merely a conflict between two interpretations of religion, but a deeper opposition between the “essence of religion” and its “instrumentalization.” The notion of the religious legitimation of war constitutes an attempt to cloak violent human actions—particularly aggressive wars—in a sacred guise, thereby placing them beyond ethical critique. Yet, by returning to the foundations of divine religions—and especially the Christian tradition—it becomes evident that such an attribution is not only incorrect but a reversal of the truth. In Christianity, the central message of Jesus Christ is peace, love, and the preservation of human dignity. Teachings such as love of one’s enemies, forgiveness, and the rejection of violence are not peripheral recommendations but foundational principles. Accordingly, any aggressive war—particularly one involving the killing of innocents, especially children—is not only religiously unjustifiable but stands in direct contradiction to the spirit and truth of these teachings. A religion that regards the human being as the bearer of divine dignity cannot legitimize their destruction, especially in the context of preemptive or aggressive warfare. This principle is not confined to Christianity; rather, across divine religions there exists a fundamental sanctity attributed to human life. Within this framework, even where war has been conditionally acknowledged, it has always been accompanied by strict ethical constraints and has never been accepted as a routine instrument of politics or a means of pursuing power. Therefore, transforming war into a “religious mission” and attributing it to divine will constitutes a profound inversion of religion’s meaning—an untenable and unacceptable justification for aggression against other nations. In such cases, religion ceases to function as a barrier to violence and is reduced instead to a tool for its legitimation. From an ethical standpoint, no credible religious framework can endorse the killing of civilians, the destruction of lands, or the infliction of widespread human suffering. In particular, violence against children—symbols of innocence and vulnerability—is not only morally condemnable but indicative of a collapse in human values. In this sense, the defense of peace is not merely a political or emotional stance, but one rooted in the deepest layers of religious faith.
Accordingly, what is observed in the discourse of the religious legitimation of war is not an interpretation of religion, but a departure from it. By linking religion to power, this discourse effectively strips religion of its authentic function—namely, guidance, moral reform, and the restraint of violence. In contrast, an approach that places religion in opposition to war and aggression remains faithful to its essence.
In the final analysis, the fundamental issue is not merely a disagreement in political judgment, but a divergence in the understanding of the truth of religion itself. A properly understood religion neither endorses aggressive war nor the killing of innocents; rather, it stands in opposition to them and calls humanity toward peace, justice, and the preservation of life. In this sense, the defense of peace is not a departure from religion, but a return to its truth. It is also evident from experience that American statesmen have often shown little genuine commitment to religious and ethical teachings—particularly those of Christianity—and have instead invoked sacred religious concepts merely to justify and mobilize public support for aggressive actions against other nations, thereby cloaking inhumane and irrational decisions in religious rhetoric and persisting in this flawed assumption.
Your Comment