Apocalyptic Expectations and the Geopolitics of the Iran War

The current Iran war shows different forms of apocalypticism: Jewish messianism, Christian Zionism, and Shiʿa millenarianism all interpret the conflict through visions of the approaching end of times.

by David Engels

Public commentary in Europe and North America frequently frames the confrontation between Israel, the United States, and Iran as a conflict between liberal modernity and religious fundamentalism, a narrative that portrays the Western side as motivated primarily by the defence of secular freedoms against an uncompromising Islamic theocracy. Such an interpretation, although rhetorically effective, captures only part of the ideological picture surrounding the present crisis. Strategic considerations remain decisive: Israel’s ambition to preserve regional military supremacy and the United States’ long-standing interest in securing maritime routes, energy flows, and geopolitical influence in the broader Middle East constitute far more tangible motivations than any abstract defence of Enlightenment values. At the same time, the Islamic Republic’s ideological profile is frequently misunderstood in Western public debate. Shiʿa Islam, the doctrinal foundation of the Iranian state, historically developed forms of coexistence with Christianity and Judaism that differ considerably from the more exclusivist traditions of certain Sunni movements, and it has generally shown little missionary ambition in the Western world.

Yet if the geopolitical motivations behind the confrontation are more pragmatic than public discourse suggests, another element of the conflict remains surprisingly underexplored: the powerful apocalyptic and millenarian expectations that circulate among influential actors—on all three sides. In Iran these beliefs are explicit, embedded in Shiʿite theology and openly referenced by political leaders. In Israel they emerge through religious Zionist interpretations of biblical prophecy. In the United States they appear, far more hidden, in the political influence of Christian Zionism and its eschatological reading of Middle Eastern events. Although these traditions differ profoundly in theology and historical origin, they share a conviction that contemporary conflicts may herald the final stage of the history of salvation—and inaugurate a new eschatological period that will benefit each respective political actor. Understanding these overlapping expectations helps illuminate why some political parties view escalation not merely as a strategic risk but as a development that could confirm deeply held religious narratives about the approaching end of times.

Jewish Apocalypticism, Messianic Expectations, and Modern Zionism

Jewish apocalyptic thought has ancient roots that reach deep into the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible, particularly texts such as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel, where visions of cosmic upheaval, divine judgement, and national restoration appear in close connection with the destiny of Israel. These texts shaped a tradition of messianic expectation in which the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral land, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the arrival of a divinely appointed king—often described simply as the Messiah—would inaugurate a final era of redemption. Although rabbinic Judaism historically treated such expectations with caution, emphasising patience and discouraging political attempts to hasten the messianic age (one recalls the horrific consequences of Sabbatai Zevi’s self-declared messianic rule), the rise of modern nationalism in the nineteenth century gradually transformed these themes into concrete and increasingly secularised political ideas.

Indeed, the movement known as Zionism, which emerged in late nineteenth-century Europe as a secular nationalist response to antisemitism, initially framed the return to Palestine primarily in political rather than theological terms. Early Zionist leaders such as Theodor Herzl envisioned a modern nation-state that would normalise Jewish existence within the international system. Over time, however, religious interpretations of the Zionist project gained increasing influence, particularly after the establishment of Israel in 1948 and the dramatic territorial expansion following the Six-Day War of 1967. Many religious thinkers interpreted these events as signs that biblical prophecy might be unfolding in contemporary history.

Within religious Zionist circles, passages referring to the territorial inheritance of Israel—often summarised through the biblical phrase “from the river to the sea”—have been interpreted as divine confirmation of Jewish sovereignty over the entire land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Such interpretations have influenced numerous political movements advocating permanent Israeli control over the West Bank and other disputed territories, while other biblical allusions to the ultimate sovereignty of the descendants of Abraham over all territories between Nile and Euphrates seem to justify Jewish rule over the entire core of the Near East and have generated the most ambitious claims. Figures associated with religious nationalism frequently present territorial expansion not merely as a matter of security policy but as a sacred obligation connected to the unfolding redemption of Israel.

The Third Temple and Its Politics

Another powerful component of Jewish millenarian expectation concerns the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. According to biblical tradition, the First Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE and the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. For many centuries Jewish tradition interpreted the longing for a restored temple primarily in symbolic or liturgical terms. In recent decades, however, activist groups have begun preparing architectural plans, ritual objects, and priestly lineages in anticipation of what they call the “Third Temple,” a development that would carry enormous theological significance. Although the Israeli state itself remains officially secular, such movements exert growing influence in political circles and occasionally receive sympathetic attention from government figures—inextricably linked as they are to the desire to expel Muslims from the Temple Mount, currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock.

Within Israeli politics, millenarian expectations appear most visibly in the current of religious Zionism, where biblical prophecy is interpreted as unfolding through the expansion and consolidation of the modern state. Politicians such as Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the Religious Zionism party and current minister of finance, frequently frame Jewish settlement in the West Bank as part of a redemptive historical process and refer explicitly to the biblical promise of the land as a guiding political principle. Similar themes appear in the rhetoric of Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the Jewish Strength party and current minister for national security, whose ideological background is shaped by the messianic nationalism that developed after the 1967 war and which views Jewish sovereignty over the entirety of the Land of Israel as a religious duty. Among religious thinkers with political influence, rabbis such as Dov Lior and Yitzchak Ginsburgh have articulated interpretations in which contemporary geopolitical events are understood as stages in the unfolding redemption of Israel and as possible preludes to the arrival of the Messiah. Even within more mainstream political discourse, figures like Benjamin Netanyahu occasionally employ powerful biblical language linking modern Israel’s struggles with ancient prophetic narratives, thereby reinforcing the symbolic framework in which territorial sovereignty, national survival, and messianic expectation become intertwined.

Although these interpretations do not represent the entirety of Israeli society—as becomes obvious when considering the election results—they illustrate how apocalyptic themes remain interwoven with political debates about land, sovereignty, and the future of the region. And given that conservative, even fundamentalist movements have time and again been extremely influential in numerous coalition governments, one should not underestimate the real impact of these ideas on important long-term strategic decisions.

Christian Zionism and the Apocalyptic Imagination in the United States

A particularly striking dimension of the contemporary geopolitical picture is the close relationship between Israeli religious nationalism and a movement that emerged far beyond the Middle East: Christian Zionism in the United States. While political support for Israel among American Christians often appears as a simple expression of solidarity with a democratic and strategic ally, a substantial segment of evangelical Protestantism approaches Israel through a theological narrative that places the Jewish state at the centre of biblical prophecy.

Christian Zionism developed within the broader framework of nineteenth-century dispensationalism, a theological system that divided history into successive divine eras and interpreted biblical prophecy in a highly literal manner. According to this interpretation, the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral land constitutes a necessary precondition for the final sequence of events leading to the Second Coming of Christ. The restoration of Israel therefore occupies a central place in a prophetic timetable that includes global conflict, the appearance of the Antichrist, and ultimately the return of Jesus to establish a millennial kingdom.

Within this theological vision, contemporary Middle Eastern politics acquire cosmic significance. Wars involving Israel are frequently interpreted as possible precursors to the battle of Armageddon described in the Book of Revelation, while diplomatic decisions concerning Jerusalem or territorial sovereignty may appear as decisive moments in sacred history. Consequently, support for Israeli territorial claims is often justified not only on political or moral grounds but also as participation in a divine plan unfolding through world events.

Prophecy and the Trump Circle

The political influence of this worldview in the United States became particularly visible during the presidency of Donald Trump. Several figures within his political circle maintained close relationships with evangelical movements that interpret Middle Eastern developments through an apocalyptic lens. The decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate the American embassy there was widely celebrated among Christian Zionists as a prophetic milestone.

In the United States, apocalyptic expectations connected to Israel are most clearly visible within evangelical political networks that interpret Middle Eastern events through a dispensationalist reading of biblical prophecy. Influential religious leaders such as John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, have for decades argued that the restoration and territorial consolidation of Israel form part of the divine sequence leading towards the Second Coming of Christ; Hagee has explicitly connected conflicts involving Israel with prophetic scenarios described in the Book of Revelation and the war of Armageddon. Another widely cited figure is Robert Jeffress, a close ally of Donald Trump, who has repeatedly framed American support for Israel as participation in God’s unfolding plan for the end of times. Earlier political leaders also reflected similar theological influences: Mike Pence, for example, frequently spoke of the modern state of Israel as the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and maintained close relationships with Christian Zionist movements. Within Trump’s broader political environment, figures such as Paula White—one of his spiritual advisers—have likewise expressed eschatological interpretations of Israel’s role in sacred history, reinforcing a worldview in which American foreign policy towards the Middle East is understood not merely as strategic alignment but as participation in a providential narrative about the approaching culmination of history. Prominent personalities associated with this milieu also include Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defence, and Mike Huckabee, US ambassador to Israel, both of whom have repeatedly expressed strong support for Israeli sovereignty over biblical lands. Huckabee, in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, explicitly framed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through theological language, describing Jewish settlement in the West Bank as the fulfilment of biblical promises. Such rhetoric resonates deeply within segments of the American evangelical electorate, where the conviction that modern Israel occupies a unique role in the divine drama of history remains widespread.

This alignment between American evangelical movements and Israeli religious nationalism produces a curious convergence of expectations. Jewish messianic traditions anticipate the arrival of a future king descended from the house of David, while Christian Zionist theology foresees the return of Christ himself; nevertheless, both frameworks interpret the restoration and expansion of Israel as an essential step towards the final transformation of history. The resulting alliance illustrates how distinct theological systems can reinforce one another in the political arena, even when their ultimate visions of redemption diverge significantly.

Shiʿa Millenarianism and the Iranian Revolutionary Imagination

If apocalyptic thinking in Israel and the United States often appears indirectly through political rhetoric or religious activism, in Iran it forms a central component of the state’s ideological identity. The Islamic Republic emerged from the 1979 revolution with a political theology rooted in Shiʿa Islam, a branch of the Muslim tradition distinguished by its emphasis on sacred leadership descending from the Prophet Muhammad’s family.

The origins of Shiʿism lie in the early dispute over succession after Muhammad’s death in 632 AD. Supporters of Ali ibn Abi Talib—the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law—argued that leadership of the Muslim community should remain within the Prophet’s lineage. Over centuries this position evolved into a theological system centred on the concept of the Imamate, according to which a line of divinely guided leaders preserves the true interpretation of Islam. Within Twelver Shiʿism, the dominant tradition in Iran, twelve such Imams are recognised.

The Hidden Imam

The twelfth of these figures, known as Muhammad al-Mahdi, occupies a uniquely important place in Shiʿite eschatology. According to tradition, the young Imam disappeared in the ninth century and entered a state of occultation, remaining hidden from human sight while continuing to guide the faithful spiritually. At the end of time he will reappear as the Mahdi, a messianic figure who will establish justice across the world and defeat the forces of tyranny. This expectation forms the core of Shiʿite millenarian belief.

Within the Iranian political and clerical establishment, several influential figures have openly connected the mission of the Islamic Republic with Shiʿite millenarian expectations surrounding the return of the hidden Imam. The founder of the state, Ruhollah Khomeini, already framed the 1979 revolution as part of a sacred historical process. His doctrine of velayat-e faqih, which grants political authority to a supreme religious jurist, was developed as a temporary arrangement meant to govern the community during the Imam’s absence. Leaders of the Iranian state thus often portray themselves as guardians preparing society for the Mahdi’s eventual return. Within this framework, global conflict and moral decay are interpreted as signs that history approaches its final stage.

Later leaders continued to draw upon similar imagery: the former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became particularly well known for his explicit references to the imminent return of the Twelfth Imam and repeatedly described the mission of the Islamic Republic as preparing the conditions for that event. He even concluded a speech at the United Nations with a prayer that God might “hasten the emergence” of the Mahdi and publicly suggested that contemporary global conflicts were linked to the approaching fulfilment of this prophecy—a worldview strongly influenced by the hard-line cleric Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi. Even the late supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, frequently situated Iran’s geopolitical confrontation with its enemies within a broader eschatological narrative, emphasising that the followers of the Mahdi must be ready to confront injustice and oppression in preparation for the final establishment of divine justice. These figures illustrate how, in the ideological universe of the Islamic Republic, apocalyptic expectation is not merely a marginal belief but a recurring element in the political language through which the state interprets its historical role.

The Politics of Martyrdom

A distinctive aspect of Shiʿite spirituality that reinforces this worldview is the central role of martyrdom. The formative events of Shiʿite identity—the assassination of Ali ibn Abi Talib in 661 by a Kharijite, the poisoning of his first son Hasan in 670, and the martyrdom of his second son Husayn in 680 at the Battle of Karbala—established a powerful narrative of righteous sacrifice in the face of injustice. Commemorations of Hasan’s and Husayn’s martyrdom continue to shape political rhetoric in Iran, where resistance against perceived oppression is frequently cast as a re-enactment of this sacred struggle.

Consequently, confrontation with powerful adversaries can acquire profound symbolic significance. Political leaders occasionally present geopolitical conflicts as stages in a cosmic battle between justice and corruption, a framing that resonates strongly within a tradition accustomed to interpreting historical suffering through eschatological expectations. The assassination of Ali Khamenei will doubtless intensify these narratives, reinforcing the belief that dramatic events signal the approaching appearance of the hidden Imam and the end of times.

Conclusion: Converging Apocalyptic Narratives

When viewed together, these three traditions reveal an unexpected convergence of religious expectations surrounding the geopolitical confrontation between Israel, the United States, and Iran. Each tradition interprets contemporary history through a narrative that anticipates a decisive transformation of the world: Jewish messianism anticipates the restoration of Israel and the coming of a Davidic king; Christian Zionism expects the return of Christ following dramatic upheavals in the Middle East; Shiʿite theology foresees the reappearance of the hidden Imam who will inaugurate universal justice. Although the exact theological details differ, the underlying conviction that present events may herald the culmination of sacred history remains strikingly similar.

Obviously, there are important differences in the immediate political influence of these movements. In the United States, apocalyptic interpretations are influential primarily within certain religious movements rather than within official state doctrine, and American political institutions remain formally secular. In Israel the state itself is not explicitly theocratic, yet religious nationalism increasingly shapes political debates and policy decisions. In Iran, by contrast, millenarian belief forms a central component of the state’s ideological foundation, openly articulated in official rhetoric and integrated into the political structure of the Islamic Republic.

These distinctions influence how apocalyptic expectations interact with political decision-making. In Iran, leaders may interpret confrontation with external enemies as confirmation of a sacred narrative already embedded in the revolutionary ideology of the state. In Israel, religious Zionist movements sometimes frame territorial expansion or military struggle as stages in a messianic process unfolding within Jewish history. In the United States, evangelical activists who view Israel as central to biblical prophecy can exert political pressure in favour of policies that strengthen Israeli sovereignty and confrontation with its adversaries.

The result is a paradoxical situation in which several influential actors—despite their theological differences—share a belief that dramatic escalation might ultimately serve a higher historical purpose. Those convinced that the end of times approaches often imagine themselves positioned on the victorious side of the final struggle between good and evil. Such expectations do not determine political decisions on their own, yet they shape the symbolic terrain on which those decisions are taken, providing moral narratives that can legitimise risk, sacrifice, and confrontation.

For observers attempting to understand the persistence and intensity of the present conflict, these apocalyptic undercurrents therefore deserve careful attention. They remind us that geopolitical struggles are rarely driven by strategic calculations alone; they also unfold within cultural and religious imaginations that give meaning to violence and sacrifice. In the case of the Iran confrontation, the most surprising common ground among adversaries may lie precisely in this shared conviction that history itself is approaching a decisive and transformative climax.