The United States calls it the Department of War. American military action has been closely tied to Israeli operations and explained in language that is not only strategic, but at times openly religious.
On paper, the Pentagon says its aims are limited. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has said the United States wants to damage Iran’s missile forces, weaken its defence industry and navy, and stop it obtaining a nuclear weapon, not drift into an open-ended war (Reuters).
But the gap between official language and political reality is becoming harder to ignore. The war has already expanded across the region, the United States has deepened its military role alongside Israel, and senior American figures are using rhetoric that makes the conflict sound moral, civilisational, and at times theological rather than narrowly strategic (AP).
The Pentagon says the war is limited. The region says otherwise.
Hegseth has argued that U.S. goals in Iran have not changed since the start of the conflict. According to his public line, the operation is focused, controlled, and still rooted in an “America-first” approach (Reuters).
That message is difficult to square with events on the ground. Fighting has continued across Iran, Israel, Lebanon and Iraq, while international concern has grown over shipping, energy supply and the risk of a wider regional war (AP). Reuters has also reported that Trump approved a joint U.S.-Israeli operation after pressure from Benjamin Netanyahu, underlining how closely Washington’s actions are now tied to Israel’s war strategy (Reuters).
This is one reason critics reject the neat language of “defence”. If a military department helps lead strikes, expands regional force posture, and integrates itself with another state’s offensive campaign, the word “defence” starts to look more like branding than description.
Pete Hegseth and the religious tone of war
Much of the criticism has focused on Pete Hegseth personally. The AP reported that after the United States entered the war with Iran, Hegseth recited Psalm 144 at a Pentagon briefing. That psalm includes the line, “Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle” (AP).
“Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.”
Psalm 144, quoted by Pete Hegseth at a Pentagon briefing, as reported by AP
That is not a small detail. A defence secretary is not just a private citizen speaking about his beliefs. He is the public face of military power. When he uses scripture during wartime messaging, critics argue that he risks making state violence sound blessed, ordained, or spiritually validated.
The AP also reported that Hegseth has brought overt Christian practice into Pentagon life more broadly, including worship services and repeated public expressions of a strongly evangelical worldview AP. Supporters may see that as personal conviction. Critics see a more serious problem: the religious colouring of military authority in the middle of a live war.
Complaints from inside the U.S. military
The concern is not only external. According to The Guardian, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation said it received more than 200 complaints from service members about religious rhetoric tied to the Iran war.
Those complaints allegedly described commanders telling troops that the war was part of “God’s divine plan”, referring to biblical prophecy, and even suggesting that Trump had been “anointed by Jesus” (The Guardian).
These claims are allegations, not formal Pentagon doctrine. But even at that level they are serious. A military made up of people from many faiths, and from no faith at all, depends on professionalism and neutrality. Once commanders begin framing war in spiritual terms, discipline and democratic accountability can become mixed with ideology.
Trump’s latest “Jesus” language adds to the pattern
Donald Trump has also added to the atmosphere. On 23 March 2026, Reuters reported that he told Republicans to pass a voting bill “for Jesus”, saying, “make this one for Jesus” (Reuters).
That comment was about domestic legislation, not Iran directly. But it still matters. In the same political moment that the United States is fighting Iran and senior defence figures are using scripture in wartime messaging, the president is also reaching for explicitly religious language in public power struggles. It strengthens the sense that religion is not just a private belief in this administration’s orbit. It is becoming part of the tone of authority itself.
Trump has also claimed there were “very good and productive” talks with Iran, even as Tehran denied that direct talks had taken place (Reuters). That combination of military escalation, political theatre and religious language makes the overall messaging around the war look less coherent and more ideological.
The close alignment with Israel
The current U.S. role in the Iran war cannot be separated from Washington’s support for Israel. Reuters reported that Trump approved a joint operation after Netanyahu argued the timing and target made it a historic opportunity (Reuters).
That matters because it weakens the claim that Washington is acting only in detached self-defence. The United States is not simply responding to a threat in isolation. It is deeply embedded in a regional military alignment, and its decisions are being shaped in part by Israeli priorities.
Critics argue that this is how “defence” language becomes misleading. A country may say it is preserving stability while actively helping widen a war. At that point, official labels matter less than actual behaviour.
Why the language matters
Words do not just describe war. They prepare the public to accept it.
- Strategic language makes war sound limited and necessary.
- Religious language can make war sound righteous.
- Moral language can make dissent sound disloyal.
- Alliance language can hide who is really driving escalation.
- Soft official labels can obscure hard military realities.
This is why the language coming from the Pentagon matters. If the department presents itself as a sober instrument of defence while senior figures speak like culture-war preachers, the public is being asked to process two stories at once. One is administrative and calm. The other is moral and charged.
A serious institution should speak seriously
There is nothing unusual about public officials having religious beliefs. The issue is the use of those beliefs in the messaging of war. A serious military institution in a democracy should explain its actions in clear strategic, legal and political terms. It should not sound as if bombs and missiles are being wrapped in biblical approval.
The Pentagon’s defenders will say critics are overreacting, that a psalm or a passing reference to faith changes nothing. But language is part of power. It frames what people are asked to tolerate. It shapes how troops understand their mission. It signals to allies and enemies how the conflict is being imagined.
If the Department of Defense wants to avoid being seen as a department of war, it must do more than repeat the word “defence”. It must show discipline not only in military action, but in the story it tells about that action. Right now, that discipline looks weak.
And when war is sold to the public with strategic slogans on one side and religious overtones on the other, the danger is not only escalation abroad. It is the slow normalisation of militarised belief at the centre of government power.
