“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” – Jesus Christ, The Sermon on the Mount
SB VEDA
Writer’s note: This was to be a piece only about US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, his proselytizing to US Troops, and what it means. However, an addendum was added as events regarding the Iran War required urgent comment.
Amidst President Donald J. Trump’s casual threat of genocide against the Iranian people on Monday, and the subsequent ceasefire that was declared – fragile as it is amidst Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and contention that it doesn’t apply to Lebanon – what seems to have gone unnoticed is how religious this war has become.
Once again – this too during the Easter weekend, regarded as the most important occasion in Christianity – some prominent Americans are calling on soldiers to “fight in the name of Jesus.”
Notable among them is the United States Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, when he called for Americans to pray for victory in the current US-Israeli war against Iran, “Every day, on bended knee, with your family, in your schools, in your churches in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Indeed, Hegseth likened the rescue on Easter Sunday of a missing American airman shot down over Iran to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This was followed mere minutes hence by Trump asserting that God supports the Israeli-U.S. war against Iran, which has killed thousands, including many civilians. “Because God is good,” he said, “and God wants to see people taken care of, – apparently, by killing innocents.
Hegseth, the former Fox News host and war veteran is hardly an embodiment of Christian values. He has been accused of sexual assault by a woman in a California hotel in 2017 (Hegseth has said he had consensual intercourse with her though he later paid the woman $50,000 in a settlement.); his first marriage was dissolved due to multiple extra-marital affairs, which he has admitted; and helming veterans’ organizations, a whistleblower report accused him of financial mismanagement, excessive drinking while on duty, and sexist as well as hostile work behaviour. The latter caused him to resign in disgrace.
Trump, too, has a past checkered with accusations of unwanted sexual advances by women. In fact, he was found civilly liable for a sexual abuse in a case adjudicated by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that many Christians can legitimately claim that neither Hegseth nor Trump are the slightest bit qualified to be be arbiters of divinity or representatives of the Christian religion.
Notably, perhaps the most prominent Christian – and messenger of God (certainly for Catholics) – Pope Leo XIV, in his homily during his Thursday morning Mass before Easter said that the Christian mission has often been “distorted by a desire for domination, entirely foreign to the way of Jesus Christ.”
The Bishop of Rome, Pope Leo XIV in 2025 – Source Wikipedia
WHY NOW?
For Hegsheth, his latest remarks are nothing new. He has been criticized for of contradicting long-standing military norms by promoting a “proselytizing Christian campaign” and embracing Christian nationalism within the Department of Defense.
That said, of the multitude of reasons given for prosecuting what is widely considered an illegal war on Iran – first the statement of Secretary of State Marco Rubio that die to Israel’s threatened unilateral attacks, and the likely retaliation against US interests that it would have provoked making US action pre-emptive, to the claims that that Iran had enriched Uranium to 60%, making it almost a fait accompli that Iran was aiming to become a nuclear power, to the country’s ballistic missile program destabilizing in the region, to Iran’s support of Hezbollah and Hamas, which are groups considered as terrorist outfits by Israel and its allies – this latest rationale for war smacks of outright desperation. What it demonstrates is that the other reasons aren’t landing with the American people, including Donald J. Trump’s MAGA base. And, as so many times in the past, invocation of religion has become a last resort to motivate soldiers and move the public.
Unfortunately for Hegseth and by extension, Trump, the Pope stands in opposition to such claims, nobody – especially Catholics and maybe a large proportion of Christians as whole – is going to buy this rationale. The exceptions may include rabid neocons like South Carolina Senator, Lyndsey Graham, bloodthirsty Fox News commentator, Mark Levin whom Yougov.com ranked 245th among TV personalities on a medium fewer and fewer people watch, and disgraced former Fox news host, Bill O’Reilly who has been relegated to a podcast with a similarly minuscule viewership – platformed more recently by popular rightist podcaster Piers Morgan, known for giving voice Zionists while maintaining the appearance of a neutral stance.
IS THIS LEGAL?
Most Americans are aware of the constitutional principle of “separation of church and state.” Indeed the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is supported by Article VI of the constitution, which states that, “”no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The Supreme Court of the United States repeated upheld this notion. Indeed, in In Everson v. Board of Education(1947), Justice Hugo Lafayette Black wrote: “In the words of Thomas Jefferson [one of the US Founding Fathers], the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”
What most Americans don’t know is that the United States Armed Forces has stricter neutrality requirements related to religion than those in effect in civilian life. There are compelling reasons for such stricture: the military is hierarchical; as such, orders and influence carry coercive weight. So even if participation is “voluntary,” critics say that subordinates may feel implicit pressure to conform, and refusing could harm careers or unit relationships.
Moreover, favouring one religion over another undermines unit cohesion, which is a core military principle – one which is especially prescient in an armed forces that depends on trust across diverse members spanning different religions, varying ethnicities and heritages, and having atheists and non-believers serving.
Hence, even beyond the Constitution, the U.S. military has its own rules requiring religious neutrality in which commanders are specifically prohibited from pressurizing subordinates on religion. Pete Hegseth, though technically a civilian member of Trump’s cabinet is seen as the top military commander the military as a whole – and by extension, Americans making his violation of the rules of neutrality in the military particularly egregious and fractious during an era in which Americans are far from united.
Complaints have already been made by service members about coercive religious overtones and exclusion
It follows that when head of the United States war apparatus with a regular non-wartime budget of approximately $800 Billion, uses his position as a pulpit to proselytize – this too espousing his minority view of Christianity as practiced by his mall local church – it is not hard to fathom why many experts on the military and the constitution alarmed that the basic tenets of the United States constitution are being violated.
According to an article published in The Detroit News, Hegseth “has brought clergy from his small Christian denomination to preach at the Pentagon, including a prominent pastor who says women shouldn’t have the right to vote.”
The introduction of religious services in an official capacity led by Hegseth introduces a destabilizing force in military. The U.S. military is supposed to be apolitical, loyal to the US Constitution and not any ideology. So, critics argue mixing religion, nationalism, and military authority, creates a form of ideological militarization in which rank and file members may feel their responsibility to adhere to the chain of command being undermined by a “higher loyalty” to their religion or God – especially when the head of the department of war, itself, states that the military is “fighting for Jesus” rather than for the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces or for a specific military objective. The blurring of responsibilities among soldiers thereby presents a serious danger.
It’s not just Hegseth, though commanders are clearly taking their cues from him: Reports suggest that some commanders have described the war with Iran as part of “God’s plan,” even invoking apocalyptic imagery tied to the Book of Revelation in which the end of the world is described.
Any reference to “End of Times” rhetoric is inherently dangerous. Belief that the current war in the Middle East, as It can justify violations of internationally recognized rules of engagement such as the Geneva Conventions (which has already occurred in this war by the US and Israel).
Herein lies the philosophical linkage between evangelical Christians and Jewish extremists either based in Israel or resident in the USA with strong ties to Israel such as dual citizenship and a belief that within Israel’s borders lies the “Holy Land.”
A key claim comes from interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), especially Ezekiel 38–39, which prophesizes a future war where a coalition of nations attacks Israel with one of the named participants being “Persia”, which is historically identified with modern Iran. According to certain modern interpretations of this, Iran opposing Israel today is literal fulfillment of prophecy.
Consequently, the current conflict is viewed by some fundamentalist Jews and Christians as an early stage of that foretold war. The connection is explicitly discussed in modern commentary linking Iran to biblical “Persia.”
Moreover, the Christian Bible – specifically, Matthew 24 states that Jesus describes global instability as a precursor to the end – providing the basis for some Christian Zionists to argue that Increasing wars—especially involving Israel—are not random but signs the timeline towards Armageddon is advancing. Scholars note that such groups often interpret modern wars as necessary steps in a divine timeline toward the apocalypse.
Another foundational belief in these prophecies stems from the creation of Israel, itself, in 1948, which is seen as fulfillment of prophecy about Jews returning to their land, ergo, per believers, history has entered the final phase of the biblical timeline From that perspective, conflicts involving Israel (including with Iran) are expected milestones, not anomalies
Most have heard the term Armageddon, but not all understand that it doesn’t simply refer to the end of the world. Rather, it evokes a final global war involving multiple nations attacking Israel in which Iran is expected to be part of a broader anti-Israel coalition. So, those who espouse this belief contend that the current Iran-Israel tensions could be setting up alliances and conditions for that final war
Some Christian Zionist voices argue that the fall of Iran’s current regime could spark a religious transformation as framed in the Biblically referenced plan of God for the End Times. Indeed, frightening, some leaders describe the war as being “right on cue” prophetically.
The End Times requires the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem – an event that could be facilitated by regional conflicts that reshape control of holy sites that could be seen as a step toward enabling that outcome.
These beliefs, already ideologically pushed within the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) if propagated in the US Armed Forces, could create tensions between the high command in the Military and boots on the ground. With the most sophisticated weaponry in the world at their disposal, an American military element gone rogue due to religious zealotry may result in Biblical manifest destiny and help bring about the very outcome prophesied in the texts referenced above.
A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF RELIGION IN WAR
A commonly paraphrased quotation of Karl Marx – that, “religion is the opium of the people,” – is used by Marxists to posit that religion is primarily a tool of social control. It doesn’t stop there: what’s generally forgotten is that Marx prefaced this by writing, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” In other words, religion can be used to make people feel better about being oppressed.
With people, including those on the battlefield, taking solace of their plight, justifying untold human suffering on the grounds that it is “part of God’s plan” is a bromide that has been used in war throughout history.
During ancient times, warfare was often inseparable from religion. Civilizations like Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia invoked their gods before battle, seeking omens, blessings, or assurances of victory. Armies carried sacred symbols, and kings frequently portrayed themselves as chosen by the gods. In the Hebrew Bible, wars fought by the Israelites were sometimes depicted as commanded or supported by God, reinforcing the idea that military success reflected divine favor.
Medieval Europe witnessed the Crusades, where Christian armies marched under the banner of divine mandate. The cry of “Deus vult” or “God wills it,” captured the fusion of faith and fighting.
Similar patterns can be found elsewhere: notably in Islam, the concept of Jihad or more precisely “Jihad of the Sword” – armed struggle – was used to invade and dominate foreign lands, enslave and tax those who refused to convert to Islam, and has been invoked by terrorists today as justification for violence against non-combatants.
Also in the Middle Ages, the newly unified Arab tribes under Islam were inspired by religion and the concept of jihad (struggle) to expand the reach of the faith, which transformed fractured tribal structures into a powerful unified force. While the story of the spread of Islam from the Middle East to North Africa, parts of Europe, and South and Southeast Asia is a complicated one, one cannot discount the importance of religious zeal as a motivating factor causing outnumbered armies to win unlikely victories.
Indeed, Dr. Kent Bob Huzen of the University of Canterbury writes in his paper entitled, What factors enabled the expansion of the Muslim empire between 650 and 730 and why did that expansion slow in the Following century?
“Islamic ideology alone gave the Arabs that outward-looking attitude which enabled them to become sufficiently united to defeat the Byzantine and Persian empires. The ideology was an essential factor in the historical process.”
Colonial powers recognized and utilized this zeal. It’s what led the British to abandon King Faisal after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in favour of the more religiously fundamentalist Wahabis of King Saud in the formation of the modern borders of the Middle East, including that of Saudi Arabia. It is not the only time Islamic jihad was used by Western powers: support for the Afghan war against the Soviets was called a “jihad” against the Godless communists, which spearheaded by support from the United States. In fact, the CIA, which distributed money and weapons, sought out the most fervently Islamic warriors to concentrate their efforts as opposed to those with more secular views.
After the Soviets retreated, the ensuing Taliban regime and the emergence of Osama bin Laden as a proponent of using terrorism against the West while being protected by the Taliban were unforeseen consequences of stoking religious battle cries in Western Asia. It culminated in the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and the consequent Afghan war prosecuted by America and its NATO allies. The attack was used in what has since been universally denounced as an utterly false premise to attack Iraq, a sovereign nation, and achieve regime change in that country by American neocons and the “coalition of the willing” of President Goerge W. Bush.
While US policymakers during the Iraq War (the Second Gulf War) were careful to keep religion out of it, Bush, known for his slips of tongue, once called it a “crusade,” which was quickly walked back. Still reports emerged that US soldiers and commanders describing the war as a fight against Islam or part of a divine plan. In one documented instance, a U.S. officer was reported to have used a loudspeaker to tell Iraqis that “Jesus kill[s] Mohammed,” which was later investigated by Army officials. Complaints were raised regarding commanders suggesting that battles in the region were part of a “God’s divine plan” to bring about the end of the world. Additionally, US occupation troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan faced criticism for attempting to proselytize Christianity to the local population, leading to investigations
ADDENDUM:
TRUMPS GENOCIDAL THREAT – AND SUBSEQUENT RETREAT
On Easter Sunday, which the vast majority Christians consider to be their holiest of days – it being the day when, the faithful believe that Jesus Christ, having been crucified and killed by the ruling Romans for sedition at the behest of Jewish leaders (John 19:12), was resurrected to save the souls of Christians, President Trump issued the following on his social media platform, Truth Social:
“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah,”
Conservative commentator and podcaster, Tucker Carlson was quick to call Trump out the next day on his podcast, saying that it was “Vile on every level.” He added, ““So obviously you’re mocking the religion of Iran…OK, if you seek a religious war, that’s a good idea.” He continued: “But by the way, no decent person mocks other people’s religions. You may have a problem with the theology — presumably you do if it’s not your religion — and you can explain what that is. But to mock other people’s faith is to mock the idea of faith itself.”
Journalist and podcaster, Tucker Carlson calling out his onetime friend, Donald J. Trump for his “vile” Easter post on social media – source The Tucker Carlson Show – YouTube
Carlson had been a regular visitor to the White House. He mentioned he was 15 feet away from Trump when he took his oath of office in 2025, and he had been a frequent advisor to Trump. He counselled the president against going to war with Iraq and was subsequently frozen out of Trump’s circle of influence.
Trump derided Carlson as having a “low IQ” and said he didn’t know what was going on. He followed these words by ordering the bombing of military sites on Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil exportation hub, following up with the following threat: “a whole civilization will die tonight,” he warned, unless a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is struck, adding: “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” Trump said.
Carlson’s colleague and friend, Candace Owens, another MAGA/America First conservative who supported Trump’s three campaigns to win the Whitehouse, now disillusioned with him as many observers have commented that he has acted in a manner opposite to that promised during his campaign, on Tuesday called Trump a “genocidal lunatic,” and insisted he should be removed from office.
“”The 25th amendment needs to be invoked,” Owens wrote in a tweet. “He [TRUMP] is a genocidal lunatic. Our Congress and military need to intervene. We are beyond madness.”
Former House of Representatives member, Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a strong supporter of Trump, who resigned after her split with Trump, called for his removal, writing: “25TH AMENDMENT!!!” She added: “Not a single bomb has dropped on America. We cannot kill an entire civilization. This is evil and madness.”
Journalist and podcaster, Megyn Kelly, another staunch Trump supporter who was criticized the President over his war of aggression against Iran said on her Sirius XM show, ““Just shut up. Fucking shut up about that shit,” Kelly railed, adding. “You don’t threaten to wipe out an entire civilization. We’re talking about [killing] civilians, just casually in a social media post.”
Under Article I of the US Constitution, Congress has the authority to impeach a president, while the 25th Amendment allows the vice-president and a majority of the cabinet to declare a president unfit to serve.
Rather than eradicating the Iranian civilization, Trump seems to irreversibly destroyed the coalition that brought him to power – his MAGA base and ‘America First’ independents. In a tome of a social media post, he recently chastised above prominent conservatives as well as the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, all of whom helped in getting Trump elected.
Although Hegseth has proselytized to the US Armed Forces, as Carlson noted, Trump never actually swore his oath of office on the Bible. So, notwithstanding claims that Hegseth wants his military to be fighting for Jesus, it begs the question, who is Trump fighting for – Israel? And, if so, why?
A DATED AND ALREADY FAILED TACTIC
Kelly has often said that Trump’s bombastic tweets are a negotiating tactic, and that in the end he backs down – but not before finding some element in the aftermath, real or imagined, to declare some kind of ‘win.’
Journalist and podcaster, Megyn Kelly tells Trump to “Shut the F… up” on her Sirus XM podcast. Kelly has come to represent Trump supporters who have now felt betrayed by his abandonment of the “America First” platform in favour of war in the Middle East advocated by neocons who were “Never Trumpets” during the 2023/24 Republican Primaries. Source – The Megyn Kelly Show, YouTube
If so, it wouldn’t be the first time that this kind tactic was used by the executive branch of US government. During the Richard Nixon Administration, the notion of “The Madman Theory” was developed. This theory of foreign policy tried to make the leaders of hostile Eastern Bloc countries think Nixon was irrational and volatile so that they would avoid provoking the U.S. in fear of an unpredictable response.
Central to the theory is the notion that, with a madman in power, threats that would ordinarily be dismissed as absurd due to the extreme risk involved, would seem plausible. Students of International Relations have tended to cast doubt on this strategy for as a credible means of coercive bargaining. Notably, well known such “madman” leaders like Nikita Khrushchev, Vladamir Putin, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Nixon, himself, had failed to gain the advantage in coercive negotiation.
Trump sold himself to the American public as a dealmaker. Perhaps he thinks that his bombastic and oft unpredictable behaviour will make the difference, this time – and Iran will capitulate in the face of existential threat.
So far, it has had little effect. With Iranian officials calling Trump a “psychopath,” Iran broke off direct communication with the United States in the negotiation process. Iranian negotiators are still dealing with intermediaries, but the threat of genocide hasn’t achieved the immediate response it, perhaps, was meant to force.
In the meanwhile, the credibility of the United States, already low due to dubious acts such as the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and commencing what has been widely described as a war of aggression against Iran amidst negotiations with that country has sunk to heretofore unimaginable depths.
Negotiators may have reached a tenuous ceasefire for now but for what? Although Hegseth calls it a military victory (no doubt he thanks Jesus for it), nobody has identified any objective that was achieved. They have negotiated to open the Strait of Hormuz (albeit it seems under Iranian control) when the narrow passage had been open and free prior to the start of the war. Threatening a nuclear holocaust on Iran for the sake of people who believe it is religiously warranted just to fix a problem of their own making seems like the most absurd reason for the death and destruction that has been wrought by this conflict over the past five weeks.
Indeed, the situation for the United States is far worse than when the war started. The fatwa issued by the late Ayatollah Khamenei against acquiring nuclear weapons seems not to have been reinstated by his son and successor. With close to $50 Billion spent on the war so far along with the deal point of Iran exacting a toll of $1/barrel on oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz and consequent effect on global oil prices, make this whole debacle a near ruinous blow to the US economy.
As Kelly told fellow podcaster, Piers Morgan on his show sometimes ironically titled show “Uncensored, ”The [ceasefire] deal sounds very much like surrender on our part,” she said, adding: “which I’m in favour of.”
“This [the war] needed to end, ugly – or any other way,” Kelly emphasized. She called it “folly to begin with, and it remained folly throughout”
Meanwhile, nobody is talking about the Epstein files – and maybe that was the whole point of this grand fiasco in the first place?
The Global Calcuttan Magazine 
