Wars are usually explained through strategy, security, and geopolitics. Yet the current war with Iran cannot be understood through these categories alone. Across Washington, Rome, and Evangelical America, religious language has quickly become one of the central ways the war is interpreted.
Evangelical pastors praying in the White House, theological support from Christian Zionists, and warnings from the Vatican reveal that religion is not merely reacting to the war: It is helping shape how the conflict is framed, justified, and contested in the international arena.
Faith traditions are supplying the vocabulary through which the war is understood, as strategic necessity, moral struggle, or dangerous escalation.
Start in Washington. In a clip shared by White House aide Dan Scavino, President Donald Trump sits at the Resolute Desk while pastors pray for “blessing and favur” to rest upon him, for “wisdom from heaven” in “these challenging times,” and for protection over US troops.
Around the same time, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth publicly recited a prayer for American soldiers, asking for divine protection and strength as they confront Iran. Reports from the military itself suggest that such language has also filtered into the ranks. Some troops have said commanders framed the conflict in religious terms, speaking of the war as part of a larger moral struggle or even invoking biblical imagery.
Importance of religion in times of war
Whatever one thinks of prayer in public life, the symbolism matters. In wartime, religious ritual does more than express private belief: It casts political decisions in a moral register and presents leadership as guided not only by strategy but by providence. American foreign policy has long blended national interest with moral narrative, but in moments of crisis that narrative often becomes explicitly religious. Faith offers a language of destiny, protection, and righteousness that can mobilize public confidence when the stakes are high.
Nowhere is that dynamic more visible than among American Evangelicals, particularly within the movement known as Christian Zionism. Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest pro-Israel advocacy organization in the United States, quickly framed the joint US–Israel offensive as a historic opportunity to confront the Iranian regime. Its founder, Pastor John Hagee, declared that the regime “must go” with the support of the free world. CUFI Action Fund chair Sandra Hagee Parker described the conflict in stark moral terms, a choice between standing with the Iranian regime or with the Iranian people.
For many Evangelical supporters, this position blends theology and geopolitics. Iran is viewed as a uniquely dangerous adversary of Israel, while the modern State of Israel itself carries deep religious meaning rooted in biblical covenant and prophecy. Within this framework, supporting Israel is not only a strategic calculation but also a religious duty.
Yet evangelical voices are not monolithic. The National Association of Evangelicals responded to the escalation with a more cautious tone, lamenting the loss of life and urging prayers for peace and justice. Some Southern Baptist leaders have similarly called for applying traditional “just war” principles and moral restraint. These differences reflect a broader debate within American Christianity about whether religion should reinforce geopolitical commitments or serve as a moral brake on escalation.
The Catholic Church has leaned strongly toward the latter role. Pope Leo XIV has appealed for “responsible dialogue” and warned that peace cannot be built on “mutual threats” or weapons that sow destruction and death. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin has cautioned that normalizing preventive wars risks setting the world ablaze and eroding the foundations of international law.
American Catholic leadership has echoed these concerns. Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has urged diplomacy to “regain its proper role” before the conflict spirals into a broader regional catastrophe.
Taken together, these responses show how faith traditions continue to shape the global discourse surrounding the war. Evangelical networks can reinforce American political support for Israel and sustain public backing for confrontation with Iran. Catholic leadership, by contrast, often pushes international audiences toward restraint, diplomacy, and moral reflection.
Yet beyond these differences lies a deeper reality. Despite living in what is often described as a secular age, religion remains deeply embedded in political life, especially in moments of crisis. When war erupts, leaders still turn to prayer, invoke divine guidance, and frame their decisions in moral and theological terms.
In times of war, strategy alone rarely satisfies societies searching for meaning. Prayer, moral language, and appeals to divine judgment continue to shape how wars are understood and justified. The conflict with Iran is therefore being fought not only on the battlefield, but also in the realm of moral and religious interpretation.
Even in an age of advanced weapons and secular institutions, many of the world’s most consequential decisions are still made, and understood, under the shadow of God.
The writer, originally from Italy and now residing in Jerusalem, earned her PhD from the University of Oxford’s Department of Theology and Religion. She currently serves as a fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI).