The Theological Explanation of the Iran-Israel War: Religion, Politics, Diplomacy and Sanctity

Introduction

The ongoing tension and conflict between Iran and Israel cannot be explained solely in terms of geopolitics, military or economic factors. The roots of this conflict also lie in deep theological and ideological foundations. There is a perception of struggle between Iran's Shiite understanding of Islam and Israel's Jewish national identity, shaped by religious symbols, sacred texts and eschatological (post-apocalyptic) expectations. This situation contributes to the radicalisation of the conflict and makes diplomatic solutions more difficult.

Iran's Theological Perspective

The Belief in the Mahdi in Shiism

• According to Imami Shiism, the official sect of Iran, the 12th Imam, Muhammad Mehdi, is in a state of occultation and will appear before the end of time to establish justice.
• Some religious-ideological circles in Iran believe that one of the conditions for Mehdi's arrival is the liberation of Jerusalem and the ‘elimination of the Israeli regime.’
• This view leads to the sanctification of politics and the adoption of anti-Israel sentiment as a religious duty.

Revolutionary Shiite Doctrine

• In the Velayat-e Faqih system established after the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution, the political and spiritual authority of the religious leader has been combined.
• This system presents the struggle against Israel as the ‘duty of the ummah’ for the establishment of justice in the Islamic world.
• Iran's foreign policy is shaped by this theological foundation; the Quds Day events are an example of this ideological discourse.

Israel's Theological Perspective

Land and Sanctity in Jewish Theology

• Israel is seen as established on the ‘promised land’ of God in Judaism (Genesis 15:18; Joshua 1:4).
• This understanding dominates the theological underpinnings even in secular interpretations of Zionism.
• The sanctity of Jerusalem (Har HaBayit/Temple Mount) is not only a political but also a theological symbol of sovereignty for Israel.

The Messiah and Future Expectations

• Some Orthodox and Messianic Jewish groups view the rebuilding of the Third Temple as a sign of the pre-apocalyptic era.
• The acceptance of Jerusalem as an ‘undivided capital’ is also fuelled by eschatological (post-apocalyptic) beliefs.
• Iran's rhetoric emphasising Jerusalem resonates with these religious groups in Israel in the form of ‘holy war’ fears and counter-preparations.

Dimension

Table: Political and Military Consequences of Theological Rhetoric

How Does Theological Tension Reflect on the International Stage?

• US support for Israel is explained with religious symbols such as the ‘Western-Antichrist alliance’ in Iran.
• Iran's regional proxy actors (Hezbollah, Shiite militias) are mobilised with this theological discourse.
• Israel's ‘right to exist’ discourse is supported by religious rhetoric and thus becomes not only political but also existential.
• Diplomacy is often limited due to this sanctified language of conflict.

Sacred Discourse, Constant Conflict

What is Sacred Discourse?

Sacred discourse is the general name for political language created by reference to religious texts, sacred places, and faith-based missions. This language:

• Fosters identity construction (e.g., ‘chosen people’ or ‘savior of the ummah’ rhetoric),
• Legitimises political action (e.g. ‘it is a duty to liberate Jerusalem’),
• Deepens conflicts by giving them a “divine” meaning.

Sacralised language in Iran and Israel

In Iran:

• Jerusalem is not just a city; it is a sacred symbol that must be ‘cleansed’ before the advent of the Mahdi.
• Israel is positioned with religious attributes such as ‘symbol of oppression’ and ‘satanic system.’
• This language, especially in the Velayat-e Faqih system, provides religious legitimacy for the religious authority's call to war.

In Israel:

• Jerusalem is ‘God's promised eternal capital.’
• Religious discourse, combined with Zionist ideology, sanctifies the claim to the land.
• In ultra-Orthodox circles, Iran can be positioned as the ‘dark force’ preventing the coming of the Messiah.

The Danger of Sacred Discourse

Such discourse:

• Narrows the scope for negotiation.
• Because a party claiming rights based on a belief or sacred text tends to view the other side as ‘illegitimate’ or ‘evil.’
• It prolongs the war.
• A diplomatic solution may be perceived as ‘surrender’ on a religious level.
• It targets the civilian sphere.
• It can label the enemy population as ‘unbelievers’ or ‘elements that must be eliminated.’

Solution: From the Sacred to Dialogue

The way to reduce tension is not to deny the sacred, but to make the sacred the language of peace.

• Theological differences should be seen not as a justification for war, but as an area for mutual understanding.
• It is essential that religious leaders, academics and opinion leaders develop a sacred discourse focused on dialogue rather than conflict.
• Peace in the Middle East requires not only political but also theological rehabilitation.

Conclusion

The Iran-Israel tension is more than a ‘political conflict’; it is a sacred competition. This complicates the resolution of the crisis and delays peace. Unless the sacred discourse is transformed, continuous conflict is inevitable. Therefore, peace is not only possible through the silencing of weapons, but also through the reconstruction of discourse.

The Iran-Israel tension is not a crisis that can be addressed solely through military or diplomatic means. This is because the conflict is a religious identity issue fuelled by sacred texts, messianic beliefs and historical traumas. Therefore:

• Peace efforts must be supported not only through political means, but also through theological dialogue and mutual understanding of sacredness.
• The instrumentalisation of sacred concepts must evolve into a discourse that legitimises peace, not war.
• Otherwise, this tension will continue to be reproduced as a sacred struggle that transcends political warfare.