religious

Tehran, Iran – Senior religious leaders have signalled that Iran’s government may soon announce a new leader as hardliners and sidelined reformists deliberate their futures amid the quickly escalating United States-Israeli war on Iran.

Mohammad Mehdi Mirbagheri – a top figure in the 88-member Assembly of Experts, which will appoint the new supreme leader after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in Tehran on February 28 – said the choice had to be made with care so it would be indisputable internally.

“An almost decisive opinion has been reached. A significant majority has been formed, but at the same time, some obstacles have to be removed, which we hope will happen soon,” the head of the Qom Academy of Islamic Sciences said in a video released on Sunday by the Fars news agency, which is affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The top ultraconservative Muslim leader representing the holy Shia city of Mashhad in the Assembly of Experts, Ahmad Alamolhoda, said on Sunday that the leader has been chosen and the secretariat of the Assembly of Experts must soon announce the result.

Abbas Kaabi, a senior member of the Guardian Council, said on Friday that the powerful 12-member constitutional body was not given any names to consider for the next supreme leader by Khamenei during his lifetime, only attributes.

“He said: Among all attributes, the financial piety of the supreme leader is of primary importance because, given the important powers and responsibilities of leadership, if financial deviation occurs, it will spread to all other matters,” Kaabi was quoted as saying by the IRGC-affiliated Mehr news agency.

The religious leader also quoted Khamenei as pointing to “a rooted belief in the fundamentals of the [1979] Islamic revolution, having insight and knowledge of enemies and sedition, and especially being anti-arrogance and having faith and resistance in confronting America and the Zionist regime” as being among other top attributes for a future leader.

Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of the late supreme leader, is believed to be a frontrunner for the position as he enjoys wide backing from powerful commanders in the IRGC who have been launching missiles and drones across the region over the past week.

US President Donald Trump, who has said he wants to play a role in determining the future leadership of Iran, has objected to the younger Khamenei’s ascension.

The Israeli army has said it will try to assassinate Iran’s remaining leaders and has bombed their offices and gathering spots in Tehran, Qom and other cities. Israel and the US have repeatedly expressed their interest in changing the government of Iran.

Israeli media reported on Saturday that Asghar Hejazi, a senior religious leader who was Khamenei’s acting chief of staff, was killed in a series of overnight air strikes targeting an underground compound in downtown Tehran used by the supreme leader and other officials. Iran has not commented.

Reformists weigh in as Pezeshkian creates row

President Masoud Pezeshkian came under fire after he released a video from an undisclosed location on Saturday and apologised to regional neighbours who have been fighting off Iranian missiles and drones.

The armed forces leading the military attacks, including the Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters of the IRGC and interim leadership council member and chief justice of the Supreme Court, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, quickly released statements to emphasise that the strikes would continue, with Iran as well as the US and Israel, saying they are ready for months of war if necessary.

The row prompted more hardliners, including religious leaders, lawmakers and IRGC-affiliated media, to call on the Assembly of Experts to move quickly to announce the next supreme leader. Ayatollah Hossein Nouri-Hamedani said the process should be expedited to “disappoint the enemy and preserve the unity and solidarity of the nation”.

The disagreement has broken out after reformist factions within the establishment have been pushed aside by hardliners in recent years while the conservatives also have lost favour among an increasingly disillusioned public.

Mohammad Khatami, a reformist religious leader who was president from 1997 to 2005, released a statement to mourn Khamenei last week but also signalled that he sees a future for a reformed Islamic Republic.

The establishment is in need of “reforming approaches and practices objected to by the people”, he said without naming any examples.

“Our path is the path of freedom, independence, people-centrism and fair living, and that is a difficult path to tread and requires wisdom and tolerance,” he said.

Khatami and the Reformist Front of Iran also released general calls for reform after thousands of people were killed during nationwide protests in January.

The Iranian government said “terrorists” backed by the US and Israel were responsible for the killings, but the United Nations and international humanitarian organisations blamed state forces for a lethal crackdown against peaceful protesters.

The leaders of the Reformist Front were arrested or summoned by Iranian intelligence and judicial authorities last month for what the establishment called an attempt to “disrupt the country’s political and social order” and working “for the benefit” of Israel and the US during the antigovernment protests.

Most have since been released on bail, but some remain incarcerated as do many of the tens of thousands of people believed to have been arrested during and in the aftermath of the protests.

Hassan Rouhani, the moderate religious leader who was president from 2013 to 2021 and who rejected being part of a reported power grab last month, has remained publicly silent during the deliberations over the next supreme leader.

Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, another influential figure, survived an assassination attempt last week, according to Iranian media.

Fuel reserves and oil refineries in Tehran were bombed by the Israeli military overnight into Sunday, leaving thick plumes of smoke enveloping the sprawling city of 10 million people during the day as oil residue fell as part of a heavy rain.

As conflict in the Middle East enters its fifth day on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials are pushing rhetoric suggesting that the campaign against Iran is a religious war.

On Tuesday, Muslim civil rights organisation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), condemned the Pentagon’s use of this rhetoric, deeming it “dangerous” and “anti-Muslim”.

The United States and Israel began their attack on Iran on Saturday and have continued to carry out strikes on Iran since then. In retaliation, Iran has hit back at targets in Israel, and US military assets in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Cyprus.

A US watchdog has reported that US troops have been told the war is intended to “induce the biblical end of times”. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also recently stated that Iran is run by “religious fanatic lunatics”.

What are American and Israeli leaders saying?

US watchdog Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) said it has received emailed complaints that US service members were told the war with Iran is meant to “cause Armageddon”, or the biblical “end times”.

An unnamed noncommissioned officer wrote in an email to MRFF that a commander had urged officers “to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ”.

The MRFF is a nonprofit organisation dedicated to upholding religious freedom for US service members.

The officer claimed the commander had told the unit that Trump “has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth”.

Israeli and US leaders have also resorted to religious rhetoric in public.

Last month, Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, told conservative US commentator Tucker Carlson during an interview that it would be “fine” if Israel took “essentially the entire Middle East” because it was promised the land in the Bible. However, Huckabee added that Israel was not seeking to do so.

Speaking to the media on Tuesday this week, Rubio said: “Iran is run by lunatics – religious fanatic lunatics. They have an ambition to have nuclear weapons.”

And, the previous day in a Pentagon news briefing, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said: “Crazy regimes like Iran, hell-bent on prophetic Islamic delusions, cannot have nuclear weapons.”

In its statement, CAIR claimed that Hegseth’s words are “an apparent reference to Shia beliefs about religious figures arising near the end times”.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referenced the Torah, comparing Iran with an ancient biblical enemy, the Amalekites. The “Amalek” are known in Jewish tradition as representing “pure evil”.

“We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember – and we act.”

CAIR said: “We are not surprised to see Benjamin Netanyahu once again using the biblical story of Amalek – which claims that God commanded the Israelites to murder every man, woman, child and animal in a pagan nation that attacked them – to justify Israel’s mass murder of civilians in Iran, just as it did in Gaza.”

The statement added that every American should be “deeply disturbed by the ‘holy war’ rhetoric” being spread by the US military, Hegseth and Netanyahu to justify the war on Iran.

“Mr Hegseth’s derisive comment about ‘Islamist prophetic delusions’, an apparent reference to Shia beliefs about religious figures arising near the end times, was unacceptable. So is US military commanders telling troops that war with Iran is a biblical step towards Armageddon.”

Why are US and Israeli leaders framing the conflict with Iran as a religious war?

By attempting to frame the conflict as a holy war, leaders are using theological beliefs to “justify action, mobilise political opinion, and leverage support”, Jolyon Mitchell, a professor at Durham University in the UK, told Al Jazeera.

“Many on both sides of this conflict believe that they have God on their side. God is enlisted in this conflict, as with many others, to support acts of violence. The demonisation and dehumanisation of the enemy, the ‘other’, will inevitably make building peace after the conflict even harder,” Mitchell said.

“There are several overlapping reasons, and they operate at different levels: domestic mobilisation, civilisational framing, and strategic narrative construction,” Ibrahim Abusharif, an associate professor at Northwestern University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera.

Domestic mobilisation refers to rallying a country’s own people. Leaders can frame conflict as religious and hence morally clear and urgent, rallying public support, he said.

In a video circulating on social media this week, Christian Zionist pastor and televangelist John Hagee is seen delivering a sermon promoting the US assault on Iran. Hagee said that Russia, Turkiye, “what’s left of Iran” and “groups of Islamics” will march into Israel. He said that God will “crush” the “adversaries of Israel”.

“Religious language mobilises domestic constituencies,” Abusharif said, explaining that in the US, this connects deeply with many evangelicals and Christian Zionists, because they already see Middle East wars as part of a religious “end times” story.

“References to the ‘end times’, the Book of Revelation, or biblical enemies are not incidental; they activate a cultural script already present in American political theology.”

Civilisational framing refers to the creation of an “us vs them” dichotomy, casting the conflict as a clash between whole ways of life or faiths, not just a dispute over borders or policy, he added. Hence, statements such as Hegseth’s reference to “prophetic Islamic delusions” simplify the terms of the war in the minds of ordinary people.

“Wars are difficult to justify in technical strategic language,” Abusharif said.

“Casting the conflict as a struggle between ‘civilisation and fanaticism’, or between biblical ‘good and evil’, transforms a complicated regional confrontation into a moral drama that ordinary audiences can easily grasp.”

“Israeli leadership has long used biblical referents as political language. We all are familiar with it. The narratives have become globalised. In Israeli political discourse, this language situates contemporary conflict within a long historical narrative of Jewish survival, and it signals existential stakes,” Abusharif said.

Have US or Israeli leaders made religious references before?

Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have used the term “Amalek” before in reference to Palestinians in Gaza during Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

Historically, during wars or military confrontations, US presidents and senior officials have also invoked the Bible or used Christian language.

President George W Bush invoked similar language after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On September 16, 2001, Bush said: “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.” The Crusades were a series of religiously framed wars, mainly between the 11th and 13th centuries, in which the papacy fought against Muslim rulers for territory.

The White House later tried to distance Bush from the word “crusade” to clarify that Bush was not waging a war against Muslims.

Abusharif said that the war on Iran is about power and politics, but using religious rhetoric energises supporters and “moralises” the conflict.

“The war itself is not theological. It is geopolitical. But the language surrounding it increasingly draws on sacred imagery and civilisational narratives. That rhetoric can mobilise supporters and frame the conflict in morally absolute terms,” Abusharif said.

“Yet it also carries risks: once a war is cast in sacred language, political compromise becomes harder, expectations become higher, and the global perception of the conflict can shift in ways that complicate diplomacy.”