The war in Iran, a divine mission for the three armies involved

Article of the week

Why this article

To continue the reflection on the links between power and religion that we began with an article on Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s Minister of Defense, we suggest you look at this article by James M. Dorsey taken from his blog, The Turbulent World.

This Middle East specialist questions the common points between Iran, Israel and the United States regarding the religious question and the conduct of war. For him, the rise in religious indoctrination within the armies, which makes faith an ideological driving force, could lead to a radicalization of current and future conflicts.

This reflection will be of interest to first year students who are studying theme 6 on the relationship between states and religions, but also to final year students who are tackling the theme on conflicts, with in particular the role of ideologies in war and obstacles to conflict resolution.

If we only had to remember one quote

“If the U.S., Israeli and Iranian militaries have one thing in common, perhaps it is their militant interpretation of faith as a motivator that demonizes the enemy, presents war as inevitable and opposes the negotiated resolution of long-term conflicts term.â€

As we see in the quote which opens this article, there is a significant common point between the three belligerents in the war in Iran: the fact that faith has become an ideological driving force at the heart of the conflict which opposes them. The reflection on the weight of ideology in the radicalization of conflicts is found in the reflections of Carl von Clausewitz that the final year students studying in theme 2.

If Iran has been a theocracy since the Islamic revolution of 1979, the other two states are secular democracies, but in which religion takes an increasing place in the conduct of war. It is then appropriate to compare these three models through the prism of their relationship to faith and war.

The first is that of Iran: the body of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, the Pasdarans, constitutes the oldest and most institutionalized contemporary example of an ideological army based on religion. The second model is that of the United States: Pete Hegseth, whom the Trump administration describes as “Minister of War” (instead of “Minister of Defense”, but this name change has not been ratified by Congress), seeks to transform the us army “from above†by injecting a militant Christian ideology. He quotes the Bible in ministry videos and organizes religious services and prayer meetings at the Pentagon during which he dooms enemies to damnation. The third model is that of Israel: around sixty state-subsidized schools prepare students for the army; However, among them, many instill ultranationalist and ultrareligious values ​​in them, under the influence of rabbis who justify racism and advocate holy war. This model has existed since 1988, and today it is estimated that 25% to 40% of Israeli officers come from these schools.

James M. Dorsey concludes by warning of the concrete dangers presented by this religious indoctrination in the ranks of the armies. He cites the example of an American strike on an Iranian primary school at the start of the war, which caused the death of 168 people, including more than 100 children. If the Pentagon claimed an error, for James M. Dorsey no evidence confirms this version, and the Israeli experience in Gaza indicates according to him that other similar incidents might not be errors in the future.

To go further

To go further, here are three links which provide an overview of the armed forces involved in the war in Iran:

And what you shouldn’t miss this week either

We can offer final year students studying theme 5 on the environment this press review which shows that the Trump administration is ready to pay very large sums to encourage manufacturers to abandon their projects to develop renewable energies. A subject which particularly clearly illuminates the concluding axis of this axis.