Religious war?
WITH the ceasefire still holding and further talks a distinct possibility, we can now reflect on the reasons why Iran was attacked and who wanted it to be attacked. It appears that a handful of people in the American administration believed that the idea of ‘Greater Israel’ needed to be supported as a religious obligation. The attack on Iran was part of a sequence to set the stage.
Let’s analyse the doctrinal framework that creates the justification for going to war itself — not the conduct in war but the reasoning for carrying out an attack or resorting to force. This framework is called ‘jus ad bellum’. Since early civilisation, jus ad bellum or the argument for a just war has been based on multiple reasons — for instance, the ambition to expand one’s empire, or the desire to take revenge in cases of generational animosity. In certain instances, religion was also counted as a justification. A clear casus belli or justification for use of force recognised in all religions and civilisations is the one for self-defence. This is codified in the language of Article 51 of the UN Charter. All states — religious or secular — have ratified the Charter. The Charter’s biggest contribution to history was to oust thousands of years of the practice of wars of aggression; it declared, instead, that borders would enjoy sanctity and no war or use of force would be considered legitimate if it was intended to expand boundaries. Consequently, occupation for military purposes, no matter how long, would not give the occupying power the title of the territory. The Charter only allowed self-defence or use of force authorised by the UN as jus ad bellum or justification to use force. All other kinds of religious reasons and civilisational animosity, as justification for going to war, were ended once and for all. This is now also called the rules-based order.
In the recent aggression against Iran, some members of the US administration shocked everyone with their reference to religious reasons and narratives to support a ‘Greater Israel’ and the war on Iran as a sequential step towards this goal. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the US ambassador to Israel, and Senator Lindsey Graham led the campaign for attacking Iran. Divine reasoning was referred to and pastors prayed in the White House for President Donald Trump. In other words, religion was presented, by a handful, as jus ad bellum for going to war.
There is strong opposition emerging within the US against the mischaracterisation of religion and the war.
Not surprisingly, there is strong opposition emerging within the US against this mischaracterisation of religion and this war and also against the means and methods that the US military is made to adopt in the war theatre inside Iran. Apart from the main figures in the US administration, sidelined or retired American officials appear critical of the misuse of the religious narrative even within the US armed forces. A group of 100 leading US-based international lawyers, including professors, academicians and practitioners of the laws of war, have signed a petition wherein the use of force against Iran has been criticised. The secretary of war was grilled in a Senate hearing. Retired generals are openly stating that war crimes prosecution is staring those who ordered the attacking of civilian targets and sidelined the rules of engagement in the face.
Regardless of the separation of church and state in the US, for a practising Christian or Jew, any treaty that they sign or ratify is read in the light of a divine obligation for which they are, as per the religious teachings of their respective faith, answerable to God. In other words, upholding the treaty and promise is actually a religious obligation for them. For millions of the followers of Christianity and Judaism, the treaties of the UN, WTO, IMO, ICAO, IAEA, and hundreds of others are promises they need to uphold as divine covenants, no less. The religious texts of all three Abrahamic religions mention fulfilling promises, whether embedded in contracts or treaties. In Islam, the Quran specifically tells believers to uphold whatever they commit to. It treats all treaties in this world as trilateral — the third party being God who will hold each believer to account in this respect.
The reason for this is simple; all three religions are, by definition, anti-chaos. They direct believers to avoid dispute or conflict. They stand for giving dignity to every human being, whether or not a believer. They insist on social harmony, collective welfare and growth as a race. Each wants their followers to grow as responsible members of the citizenry. Upholding promises is an act of both responsible conduct and the epitome of human dignity. When a Christian or a Jew argues for rejecting an obligation stipulated in modern-day treaties, there is little doubt that they are violating the teachings of their faith. Religious jurists have viewed such violation as a sin.
Why would a Jewish policymaker in Israel violate international law or a treaty that his state has signed? Why would a God-fearing Christian official in the US government act contrary to a treaty commitment? No religious preacher can or should stretch biblical text to induce their followers in decision-making positions in Israel or the US to act in violation of international treaties that these countries are a party to.
The three religions have respect for basic battlefield rules whenever their followers go to war or face the threat of one. These principles are based on both religious texts and civilisational norms. These are called ‘jus in bello’ by legal experts, ie, the laws regulating the conduct of war itself. Their most recent codified versions are contained in the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. In other words, in the area of the conduct of hostilities, one can clearly map what may be referred to as a ‘revelation to legislation’ journey.
Perhaps it is necessary to connect institutionally with extreme religious orders in the US and elsewhere and help them understand that adhering to international treaties is not inconsistent with faith, religious beliefs or any divine scriptures.
The writer is a former caretaker federal law minister and a public international law practitioner.
Published in Dawn, April 17th, 2026
