Beyond Politics: What Biblical Prophecies Reveal About US-Iran Relations

Religious prophecy, rather than politics, shapes America’s confrontation with Iran. The evangelical influence on U.S. foreign policy proves this point. Trump captured the support of about 8 out of 10 White evangelical Christian voters in the 2024 presidential election. Republicans showed overwhelming support as 87% trusted Trump to make the right decisions about using force against Iran after recent airstrikes.

A deeper bond exists between Christianity, Iran, and biblical prophecy. Israel’s attacks on June 13 destroyed or damaged three nuclear facilities and reduced Tehran’s nuclear capabilities by a lot. Many evangelicals saw these events through prophecy’s lens. They interpret scripture to predict that “in the last days, a great coalition from the north—including Persia (modern-day Iran)—will rise up against Israel”. Critics call this a self-fulfilling prophecy because religious beliefs could shape political choices. John Hagee, Christians United for Israel’s founder, made his position clear: “We must stand with Israel today and every day. Iran’s future as an evil force in the Middle East is now in question”.

The Iran Crisis: What Sparked the Latest Conflict

_{Image Source: Al Jazeera}

“Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years. We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans.” — Tom Cotton, Senate Republican Conference Chair, U.S. Senator

The Middle East plunged into open conflict on June 13, 2025. Israel launched surprise strikes against Iran that quickly turned into a regional crisis affecting the entire world. This military action started the most direct confrontation between these longtime enemies in decades.

Timeline of recent bombings and military actions

Events unfolded rapidly:

• June 13: Israel launched “Operation Red Wedding” and killed about 30 top Iranian military commanders in near-simultaneous strikes in Tehran. Israeli forces also executed “Operation Narnia” and eliminated nine senior Iranian nuclear scientists.
• June 13-20: The Israeli Air Force flew over 1,500 sorties in Iran with more than 600 aerial refuelings. They hit roughly 900 targets using 4,300 munitions.
• June 21-22: President Trump gave the green light to “Operation Midnight Hammer.” Seven B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles struck three Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation used more than 125 U.S. military aircraft.
• June 23: Iran struck back by firing missiles at the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Both sides announced a ceasefire shortly after.

Iran launched over 500 ballistic missiles and 1,100 drones at Israel during this period. Israeli defenses stopped most attacks, but some got through.

Key players: Israel, Iran, and the U.S.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel defended its strikes as a “last-resort effort” to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. They targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missile capabilities, and military leadership.

Iran took heavy losses under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The attacks killed their military commander-in-chief Mohammad Bagheri and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander-in-chief Hossein Salami.

President Donald Trump’s United States stayed neutral at first but joined the fight on June 21-22. Trump claimed the strikes had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities. Experts still assess the final damage.

Why this moment matters geopolitically

This wasn’t just another Middle East conflict. It fundamentally changed regional and global power dynamics.

The fight brought decades of tension to a head between two competing regional visions. A pro-Western “axis of stability” (Israel and Sunni Arab states) faced off against Iran’s “axis of resistance”.

Israeli and U.S. officials say the strikes pushed Iran’s nuclear program back by years. This might prevent other countries from racing to build nuclear weapons. One analyst explained, “If Iran is able to cross the nuclear threshold, numerous countries in Asia, Europe, and potentially beyond will race to obtain nuclear weapons themselves”.

The conflict revealed new international alliances. European allies backed Israel’s actions. China and Russia condemned the attacks and urged restraint. Gulf states worried about regional stability despite their long-standing opposition to Iranian influence.

Iran’s political landscape could change dramatically. Their nuclear program lies in ruins and their military leadership is gone. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian called this “a golden opportunity for change”. Whether this leads to real reform or more of the same remains unclear.

Evangelical Beliefs and the Role of Prophecy

_{Image Source: NPR}

Politics alone doesn’t explain America’s approach to Iran. We need to learn about the religious framework many evangelicals use to view Middle East conflicts. Their point of view comes from the concept of prophecy and how people interpret it today.

What is prophecy? A brief definition

Religious contexts define prophecy as “a message from God” that comes through human intermediaries. Prophets believed God chose them to share His will. They received these messages through visions, dreams, or direct revelation. Biblical prophecy doesn’t just predict the future like fortune-telling. It exists “to edify, exhort, and comfort” people.

Many evangelicals see current events through prophecy’s divine lens. One prominent evangelical pastor says studying biblical prophecy helps believers “find God’s purpose for the chaos around us”. This transforms random world events into meaningful pieces of God’s timeline.

The rise of dispensationalism and Rapture theology

The core team of evangelicals bases their views on Iran on dispensationalism. John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish pastor, developed this system in the 19th century. Dispensationalism splits history into distinct periods where God interacts with humanity differently.

Dispensationalism rests on several key beliefs:

• A clear difference between Israel and the Church
• A word-for-word interpretation of Old Testament prophecies about Israel
• The belief in a “rapture” where Christians go to heaven suddenly
• A seven-year tribulation period that ends with Christ’s return

This system became hugely popular in America. Cyrus Scofield’s Reference Bible (1909) started the trend. Later, books like Hal Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” (1970) and the “Left Behind” series of the 1990s sold over 65 million copies. These works made complex theological ideas available to millions of American evangelicals.

How prophecy shapes evangelical views on Israel

Prophecy influences evangelical views on Israel in two main ways. First, many evangelicals believe in “blessings theology” based on Genesis 12:3. God tells Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you”. They apply this passage to modern Israel, which creates a vital need to support the Jewish state.

About 80% of evangelicals think Israel’s establishment in 1948 fulfilled biblical prophecy that would lead to Christ’s return. Israel plays a vital role in end-times events for dispensationalists. John Hagee, who founded Christians United for Israel, explains this connection: “When Jewish people are present in Israel, the clock starts ticking” on the rapture.

This prophetic framework shapes policy priorities. A LifeWay Research survey shows that over half of evangelicals support Israel’s existence because it fulfills prophecy. About 60% of evangelicals think we live in the end times. This creates urgency around Middle East conflicts, especially those between Israel and Iran.

Millions of American evangelicals see today’s tensions with Iran as more than just political struggles. These events might be prophetic developments in God’s timeline leading to Christ’s return.

Trump, Evangelicals, and the ‘Chosen One’ Narrative

_{Image Source: NPR}

Donald Trump means more than just a political leader to millions of American evangelicals. They see him as a chosen instrument in what they notice as an epic battle for America’s soul. Their religious perspective deeply affects foreign policy, especially when dealing with Iran.

The idea of Trump as divinely appointed

Evangelical Christians embraced the concept of Trump as God’s chosen vessel. White evangelical Christians showed strong support for Trump, with about 8 in 10 backing him in both 2016 and 2020 elections. Their support remained steady despite his personal controversies. The narrative grew stronger after the July 2024 assassination attempt. Trump declared, “Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason, and that reason was to save our country and to restore America to greatness”.

Religious leaders consistently reinforced this message of divine appointment. After the assassination attempt, Reverend Franklin Graham, son of prominent evangelist Billy Graham, made his position clear: “The bullet that went through his ear missed his brain by a millimeter, and his head turned just at the last second when the gun was fired. I believe that God turned his head and saved his life”.

Biblical references used to justify support

Evangelicals draw parallels between Trump and Cyrus the Great, an ancient Persian king who freed the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity. This biblical comparison lets them support Trump whatever his personal behavior might be. Like Cyrus, he doesn’t need to be virtuous to fulfill God’s purposes.

Lance Wallnau, an influential evangelical thinker, explained it this way: “Trump is a ‘modern-day Cyrus,’ an ancient Persian king chosen by God to ‘guide in chaos'”. Some believers find prophetic meaning in Trump being the 45th president. They connect this to Isaiah 45, which describes Cyrus as God’s “anointed”.

Some compare Trump to King David, though this comparison raises questions given David’s genuine repentance for his sins. Jerry Falwell Jr. put it simply: “God is in total control… He even calls a pagan king, Cyrus, his anointed, or his servant to do the things that he wants him to do”.

How this belief influences foreign policy

This religious perspective shapes Trump’s Middle East policy directly, particularly with Israel and Iran. Christian Zionists believe God gave the Holy Land to the Jews. They think biblical prophecy requires Jewish control of this territory for Christ’s return.

Trump’s choice of Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel shows this religious influence. Huckabee shares the evangelical belief that Jews should occupy the entire area of biblical Israel, including the occupied West Bank and Gaza, “in order to precipitate events leading to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ”.

Their prophetic outlook creates policies where supporting Israel against Iran becomes more than just strategy – it becomes a divine mandate. Mike Pompeo, an evangelical Christian Secretary of State who “tends to lay out US policy in religious terms”, compared Trump to Queen Esther while announcing America’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He suggested Trump had been “sent from God to save the Jews”.

The Historical Roots of Christian Zionism

_{Image Source: Britannica}

Christian Zionism’s roots stretch back centuries, way beyond today’s headlines about Iran. The movement first appeared in colonial America with Puritans like Roger Williams and President John Adams. Its modern form emerged in the late 19th century across the United States and Great Britain.

Genesis 12:3 and the blessing of Israel

The life-blood of Christian Zionism comes from Genesis 12:3, where God tells Abraham: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”. John Hagee calls this verse “the one purpose of God for humans”. This interpretation creates a transactional theology. People who bless Israel receive divine favor, while those who oppose it risk divine judgment.

Christians have applied this verse to modern Israel through the centuries. A scholar points out that “God’s blessing is not contingent on Israel’s perfection”. This allows supporters to maintain their steadfast dedication whatever the political complexities. The biblical mandate drives Christian Zionist political advocacy.

The founding of modern Israel and its prophetic significance

Israel’s establishment in 1948 changed Christian Zionism from theoretical theology to tangible reality. Dispensationalists see this event as fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy about dry bones coming to life. This represents Israel’s staged return from exile.

Christian Zionists point to specific biblical passages that predict an end-time regathering of Jews to their land. A theologian explains, “In 1948 when the modern state of Israel was born, it not only became an important stage setting development but began an actual fulfillment of specific Bible prophecies”. They view this return as happening “in unbelief” before a future spiritual awakening.

The influence of John Hagee and CUFI

Pastor John Hagee revolutionized Christian Zionism by founding Christians United for Israel (CUFI) in 2006. CUFI grew faster into America’s largest pro-Israel organization with over 10 million members. This number surpasses America’s entire Jewish population of 7.6 million.

Hagee faced strong opposition, including bomb threats to his church. Yet he built lasting interfaith relationships with Jewish leaders. CUFI’s main goal focuses on teaching Christians about their “biblical mandate to stand with Israel”. The organization mobilizes political support through yearly Washington lobbying efforts.

The Dangers of Prophecy-Driven Politics

“This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran. This was a precise, limited strike, which was necessary and by all accounts was very successful. As President Trump has stated, now is the time for peace.” — Jim Risch, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, U.S. Senator

Religious prophecy’s influence on political decisions creates several critical dangers that can reshape international relations completely. The situation becomes especially problematic with complex issues like the current Iran crisis.

Self-fulfilling prophecy in foreign policy

Robert K. Merton’s definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy fits this context perfectly: predictions come true because most people believe in them and actively make them happen. This mechanism creates dangerous feedback loops in international relations. To name just one example, 84% of American companies in China report that US-China tensions affect their business development, which leads them to create separate supply chains for different markets. Chinese companies in America face similar challenges, with 81% ranking bilateral relations as their top concern.

The Middle East policy shows this pattern too. Leaders who assume relations will deteriorate take defensive measures that end up causing the very deterioration they feared. Religious prophecy makes this pattern more problematic because predetermined theological narratives can shape diplomatic decisions.

Ignoring human rights and diplomacy

Human rights considerations often fade away as prophecy-driven politics takes hold. Human Rights Watch points out that “selective government outrage and transactional diplomacy” creates dangerous double standards. Compromise becomes almost impossible when religious doctrine drives policy instead of practical governance.

The evidence shows up in multiple contexts:

• Afghanistan sees brutal repression continue with minimal international attention
• European nations push back against asylum seekers despite humanitarian concerns
• Religious minorities suffer as religious beliefs dictate policies rather than serving broader public needs

Why critics warn against mixing religion and statecraft

History shows that conflict becomes “unavoidable, understanding disappears, and community cohesion crumbles” when religion and politics merge. Critics point out three main concerns with prophecy-driven statecraft:

Religious framing can polarize complex conflicts by putting too much emphasis on theological dimensions. Middle Eastern conflicts, for example, involve critical economic, social, and environmental factors that get overlooked when reduced to religious terms.

Prophecy-focused approaches tend to favor belief-based religious expressions over practice-based spiritual traditions. This creates blind spots where policymakers miss certain communities’ needs.

Prophecy-oriented politics often turns religion from a private matter into a coercive public force. The system’s fairness breaks down the moment one group forces religious views into public decision-making.

The Prophetic Lens on Modern Geopolitics

Our analysis shows how prophecy and politics are more deeply connected than most people realize. American foreign policy toward Iran has been shaped by evangelical interpretations of biblical prophecy. Military actions are now seen not just as geopolitical needs but as ways to achieve divine plans.

Most secular analysts focus only on oil interests and security concerns. Religious beliefs drive much of the public support for confrontational policies. The numbers tell the story – 80% of white evangelicals support Trump, and 60% believe we live in the end times. These beliefs translate into electoral power and policy influence.

Religious factors make diplomatic efforts more complex. People who see conflict through an apocalyptic lens rarely want to compromise. Recent military exchanges between Israel, Iran, and the United States show how prophecy-driven politics quickly turn into armed conflicts.

Trump’s “chosen one” image adds another layer of complexity. His supporters see him as divinely appointed, so his decisions become unquestionable whatever the real-life consequences might be. This creates dangerous precedents that affect democratic governance and international relations.

Prophecy-driven politics often push human rights aside. Some biblical interpretations about blessing Israel take priority over civilian casualties and diplomatic options. These policies reflect religious mandates rather than humanitarian principles.

Anyone who wants to understand America’s approach to Iran needs to grasp this prophetic angle. Religious beliefs shape millions of voters’ choices and the officials they put in office.

Today’s policymakers face a crucial question: Should prophecy determine policy or just help inform it? We need to respect religious freedom and diverse beliefs. But when apocalyptic expectations guide nuclear policy, the stakes become too high.

Successful diplomacy must acknowledge religious motivations while finding practical solutions based on common interests. If we don’t, self-fulfilling prophecies might create the very conflicts they predict and turn ancient texts into modern tragedies.