Iran says that no state is safe anymore: the conflict with the United States is outgrowing the regional framework and raising the question of a global crisis
Iran and the United States are increasingly openly using religiously charged rhetoric as the war in the Middle East enters a new, more dangerous phase. In Tehran, resistance is presented as the defense of a just order and national sovereignty, while in the American political and military sphere in recent weeks statements have been recorded in which the war against Iran is described in the language of divine mission, prophecies, and “God’s plan”. At a moment when there is simultaneously talk of a ceasefire, new deployments of American forces, and the possibility of the further spread of the conflict to the Gulf states, such discourse is no longer merely the propagandistic background of the war. It is becoming an important element of escalation, because it translates military conflict into a moral and almost eschatological framework in which compromise is harder to defend politically, and de-escalation is easier to portray as weakness.
The war which, according to United Nations data, began on February 28, 2026 with American and Israeli strikes on Iran, by March 25 had engulfed a wider area of the Middle East and seriously shaken the international energy market. According to available information from diplomatic and security sources, Iran retaliated with attacks on targets in Israel and on American and allied interests in the region, while certain Gulf countries became direct or indirect battlefields. Because of this, messages from Tehran that “no state is safe” no longer sound like rhetorical exaggeration, but as a warning that the geographical boundaries of the conflict are rapidly expanding.
A conflict that has grown from a local war into a regional security shock
The latest developments show how unstable the situation is. On March 25, the Associated Press reported that Iran had received an American ceasefire plan through Pakistani intermediaries, but that at the same time it is publicly rejecting diplomatic efforts and continuing attacks on Israel and the Gulf Arab countries. On the same day, an attack was also recorded that caused a major fire at Kuwait International Airport, while alarms sounded again in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. According to the same source, Washington is sending additional forces to the region, including at least one thousand members of the 82nd Airborne Division and around five thousand marines and thousands of sailors, which shows that alongside diplomacy a scenario for the continuation of the war is also being prepared.
The death toll further confirms the scale of the crisis. According to data reported by AP, the number of dead in Iran exceeded 1,500, 16 people were killed in Israel, and at least 13 deaths were recorded among American soldiers. More than one thousand people also lost their lives in Lebanon, where Israel is targeting Hezbollah, an allied armed group linked to Iran. Such data point not only to the intensity of the fighting, but also to the fact that the conflict can no longer be viewed exclusively through the Iran-US axis. The states of the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, Israel, international maritime routes, and global markets have been drawn into it.
The issue of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s key energy arteries, is particularly sensitive. According to AP, approximately one fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through that passage, and Iranian navigation restrictions and attacks on ships have almost halted tanker security and seriously endangered freedom of navigation. In the United Nations, proposals for resolutions are therefore also being discussed that would allow the use of “all necessary means” in order to keep the passage open. The very fact that such wording has appeared on the table shows how quickly the economic and security crisis can turn into an even broader international conflict.
Religious language as a weapon of political mobilization
Along with military operations, attention is also drawn to the way in which the war is explained to domestic and international audiences. In Iranian political communication, the defense of the country and resistance to foreign intervention are presented as a struggle for a just order, dignity, and the legitimate right to self-defense. Such framing has a long history in official Iranian rhetoric, but in the current phase of the war it gains additional weight because it is used to maintain internal cohesion and legitimize the continuation of the conflict despite major human and economic losses.
On the other hand, in the United States another type of religiously charged message has emerged, which has provoked political and legal disputes. American members of Congress requested an official investigation after allegations that certain military commanders or other officers told subordinates that American operations against Iran were part of religious prophecy, a divine plan, or an apocalyptic event. In the letter sent to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, it is specifically requested to determine whether such messages were indeed delivered, where they originated in the chain of command, and whether they are contrary to rules on religious neutrality and the prohibition on the abuse of authority.
The controversy is further intensified by public statements of high officials. Al Jazeera recorded in early March that American and Israeli leaders used religious references while describing the war against Iran. Among the cited examples are statements by American Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about “prophetic Islamic delusions”, claims by the American ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee in a biblical key, and Netanyahu’s invocation of Amalek, an ancient biblical enemy. In the same context, reports by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation were also conveyed that certain American soldiers reported that the war had been presented to them as a step toward Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
Such rhetoric has several consequences. First, the war ceases to be presented as a limited security operation and acquires the characteristics of a moral, civilizational, or even holy struggle. Second, the opponent is more easily portrayed as absolute evil, which reduces the space for diplomatic mediation. Third, religious imagery and references strongly mobilize the domestic base, especially in political environments in which faith and national security have long formed a connected identity framework. Experts cited by Al Jazeera warn that such speech may strengthen political support in the short term, but in the long term it makes the restoration of trust and post-war stabilization more difficult.
Why the boundary between private faith and state power matters
The very presence of religion in the public sphere is not new in either American or Iranian politics. But the problem arises when military power begins to be legitimized as an extension of divine will. In the American case this is a particularly sensitive issue because the armed forces are formally required to maintain institutional neutrality toward religion. That is precisely why, in their request for an investigation, members of Congress warned of a possible violation of Department of Defense guidelines, including rules relating to religious neutrality, inappropriate proselytizing, and the abuse of command position.
If soldiers are being led to believe that they are fighting not only for state policy but also for the fulfillment of religious prophecy, this erases the distinction between a state decision and personal faith. In political terms, this can produce short-term mobilization, but also deep mistrust within the military itself, especially among members of different faiths or those who do not share such a worldview. In diplomatic terms, such messages strengthen Iran’s claim that the country is facing not only a geopolitical war, but also a civilizational one.
Iran then uses such a narrative for its own consolidation and for an attempt at broader political positioning in the Muslim world. When Tehran speaks of defending a just order and opposing aggression, this is not only a message to the domestic public, but also an attempt at the international framing of the conflict. In this competition of narratives, both sides are in fact doing the same thing: they describe the war not only as a conflict of interests, but as a conflict of moral worlds. That is precisely why religious language is not a secondary ornament of political propaganda, but one of the mechanisms of further radicalization of the conflict.
The global economy is already feeling the consequences of the war
That the consequences are not limited to the battlefield is also shown by market indicators. According to Al Jazeera, the price of Brent rose in mid-March to 106 dollars per barrel, which is more than 40 percent above the level of February 27. At some moments, according to AP, Brent came close to the threshold of 120 dollars during the conflict, and even after news of possible negotiations it remained significantly higher than before the start of the war. Experts warn that a prolonged war could push prices further toward 130 or even 150 dollars per barrel, with chain effects on transport, food, heating, credit costs, and inflation.
Disruptions are also visible in the market for liquefied natural gas, air transport, and the insurance of maritime routes. Al Jazeera states that LNG prices rose even more sharply than oil prices and that major air carriers were faced with a sudden increase in fuel prices and flight restrictions due to the security risk. When weakened tanker traffic through Hormuz, higher insurance premiums, and the risk of further strikes on energy infrastructure are included in the same equation, it becomes clear why there is increasingly frequent talk of the possibility of a global economic crisis, and not just a regional disruption.
In addition, the rise in energy prices hits hardest the countries that are already burdened by high debt and inflation. Every stronger oil shock in modern economic history has been an introduction to broader recessionary pressures, and the current war carries an additional problem: it is taking place in a geopolitically highly fragmented world, with weakened trust among the great powers and without a clear international mechanism that could quickly impose de-escalation.
Diplomacy exists, but it is failing to suppress the logic of escalation
Despite the growing violence, diplomatic channels are not completely closed. According to AP, the American ceasefire proposal delivered to Iran through Pakistan covers issues such as easing sanctions, limiting Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. But these very points also show how difficult an agreement is: these are issues that were among the most contentious even before the outbreak of the current war.
Iran has repeatedly said that it will not negotiate on its ballistic program or on support for regional allied groups, because it considers them key parts of its own security strategy. On the American side, the additional deployment of troops sends the message that negotiations are being conducted from a position of pressure, not of reduced tension. In such circumstances both sides are simultaneously talking about an agreement and preparing for further strikes, which is the clearest sign that the diplomatic process has not yet taken control of the crisis.
The United Nations, meanwhile, is trying at least partially to respond to the regional spillover of the war. On March 11, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2817 (2026), which condemns Iranian attacks on neighboring states amid “rapidly spiraling” violence in the region. But that decision too shows the limitations of the international system: while some are calling for stronger pressure on Tehran, others are calling for a return to diplomacy and oppose wording that would open the door to new military operations under the auspices of the UN.
Precisely because of this, the most dangerous element of the current crisis may not be only the intensity of the strikes, but the way in which the war is being narrated politically. When the conflict is described as a battle of good and evil, the defense of civilization, or part of a divine plan, the threshold for compromise becomes higher, and the threshold for the expansion of the war lower. That is why the warning that “no state is safe” should be read literally and politically: not only as a threat of new attacks, but also as a description of an international order in which a regional war is turning into a test of the resilience of global security, the energy market, and diplomacy’s very ability to overcome the logic of holy war.
Sources:- Associated Press – report of March 25, 2026 on the American ceasefire proposal, additional troop deployments, attacks on Kuwait, and estimates of human losses- Associated Press – report on the proposed UN Security Council resolution to preserve navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and the consequences for global energy security- Office of Congressman Jared Huffman – request by members of Congress for an investigation into allegations that American military commanders presented the war in Iran as part of religious prophecy and “God’s plan”- Al Jazeera – analysis of religious language in the statements of American and Israeli officials and in the reactions of civil and religious rights organizations- Al Jazeera – overview of the economic consequences of the war, the rise in oil and LNG prices, and warnings about the risk of a broader global recession- United Nations – report on the adoption of Resolution 2817 (2026) in the Security Council and the official description of the regional spread of violence after the strikes of February 28, 2026.
Find accommodation nearby
Creation time: 3 hours ago