Washington will not be able to think straight about Iran, and will opt for the wrong tactics.
About fifteen years ago, I noted that Western reliance on secular rationalism was insufficient to fully grasp the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even then, it was clear that the region’s future would be shaped increasingly by religious symbolism, epitomized by Al-Aqsa versus the Third Temple.
Since that time, developments have continued: In Israel, the November 2022 elections ushered in a leadership devoted to establishing Israel on the ‘Land of (Greater) Israel,’ aiming to displace the non-Jewish populace and enforce Halachic law.
The new administration’s agenda reflects an eschatological and messianic purpose, pursuing a teleological journey toward messianic Redemption. This is neither secular nor framed in Enlightenment ideals.
My argument then—and still—is that Western secular, mechanistic reasoning fails to interpret these profound transformations. The West persists in applying its own conceptual frameworks to phenomena like Messianism and the quest for Redemption, which exist outside the bounds of contemporary post-modern Western thought. While power politics is understood, eschatology remains largely foreign to Western secular minds.
Ultimately, attempts to persuade individuals driven by messianic visions that a two-state solution in historic Palestine offers their resolution are futile. Such followers actively anticipate Armageddon and the downfall of non-Jews.
This is not a transient trend or passing fancy. Messianism has been a significant, though fluctuating, force in Judaism since figures like Sabbatai Zevi (1660s) and Jacob Franks (18th century). Some of its ideas even seeped into European thought during the later Enlightenment.
Jewish historian Gershom Scholem accurately forecast that religious Zionism—aligned lately with Likud and the settler movement—functions as a “militant,” “apocalyptic,” and “radical” messianic force aiming to “force the end” by demanding state actions like expansive territorial control to prepare for the end times.
Predictably, Western mechanistic rationality struggles to understand Iran’s motivations just as much as it does Israel’s current realities. This literalist approach erases the awareness of Iran’s profound resistance and revolutionary spirit.
Instead, Iran is often mistakenly viewed through a 19th century nation-state model—the idea of a centralized, top-down government as the chief authority—while historically, broader polities often operated through different legitimacy principles.
In a 1979 interview with Richard Falk, Ayatollah Khomeinei stated clearly that the Revolution represented a civilizational rather than a national victory. He emphasized that the primary community for Muslims was civilizational and religious rather than national or territorial. Khomeini argued that territorial nation-states based on national identity lacked the organic unity seen in the Middle East that European nation-states possessed.
He consistently maintained that a government aligned with Islamic values could not genuinely function on democratic grounds without ecclesiastical guidance from senior Islamic clerics serving as the highest political authority.
The early 20th-century suppression of Islam, forced secularism, and the abolition of the Caliphate under Mustafa Kamal led Seyyed Qutub to advocate for revolutionary vanguardism before his execution in 1966. Qutb’s works, particularly Social Justice in Islam—which coincided with widespread protests against Palestine’s partition in 1947—laid the ideological foundation for the revolutionary thought that inspired Iran’s uprising.
For Iranians, this embodied a return to a venerable tradition emphasizing spiritual and internal human transformation: a realm of hierarchical consciousness committed to resisting oppression and defending the marginalized.
Therefore, viewing Iran strictly as a nation-state results in a fundamental misunderstanding. The constraints of mechanistic analysis prevent outsiders from fully appreciating or anticipating Iran’s trajectory. Currently, young Iranians are enthusiastically reembracing the ethos rooted in the 1979 Revolution. A potent, radical energy is emerging within Iran and resonating far beyond its borders.
If the West hopes to comprehend this, it must first self-reflect: Are we genuinely as secular and rationally strategic as we assume?
U.S. military historian Michael Vlahos, in a comprehensive essay titled America is a Religion, observes that the United States itself is deeply influenced by messianic idealism, millenarianism, and Manichaeism—“This is an enduring theme whose deep current flows into Christianity”:
“Since its founding, the United States has pursued, with burning religious fervour, a higher calling to redeem humanity, punish the wicked, and christen a golden millennium on earth. America has steadfastly hewed to its unique vision of divine mission as “God’s New Israel”.
Of course, American ‘Civil Religion’ is deeply tied to the Reformation, Calvinism, and Protestantism. “Although its scriptural reading became secular in the Progressive era, the American religion still remained tethered to its formative roots,” Vlahos asserts.
“Consequently, America is not only “messianic” in character—as in, “possessed by passion and zeal”—but embodies an implicit biblical outlook proclaiming its belief in the predestined nature of its mission. A “chosen nation” divinely selected to act as the world’s Redeemer in the name of Providence.”
Yet, according to Vlahos, similar to the recent Israeli elections, the U.S. went through a transformative moment after 60 years (1963–2023) of repeated, unfulfilled military failures:
“Each episode [that was] waged to fulfil the prophecy of a global democratic millennium—and with each time, that dream slipped away.”
This, he writes, led American messianism to devolve into “a Manichaean caricature of itself—where American ‘good news’ was overtaken by the persistent shadow of Evil and the threat of force. The sacred terms, Freedom and Democracy, though still uttered, have become empty slogans.”
“The American ‘gospel’ ceased preaching redemption and atonement: it now centers on enforcement and punishment.
“This dramatic reversal occurred swiftly on 9/11—and with Guantanamo.”
“Almost overnight, America abandoned ‘international rules’ and ‘civilized norms’—constructing instead a network of torture and arbitrary detention, devoid of oversight or appeals.”
Currently, the United States faces intense domestic polarization while continuing foreign conflicts that its leaders attempt to frame within redemptive narratives designed to bolster domestic political legitimacy (such as promoting the ‘Peace through Strength’ doctrine) through the war on Iran. The U.S. establishment thus views foreign military success as a path to restoring its political influence at home and abroad. Vlahos describes this as “a mutually destructive dynamic.”
In short, this situation nearly guarantees that Washington will be unable to approach Iran with clear judgment and is likely to choose ineffective strategies.
About the Author
