The war is being fought to gain control over the vast oil reserves in the Middle East and the dollars printed through their trade. In short, a war of weapons is being waged for economic dominance. However, in this context, there exists another perspective, one that leads to a deeper and more fundamental understanding, which the common perception often fails to grasp. That perspective is that this is essentially a religious war. Hindus may assume that a "religious war" refers to something like the Pandavas versus the Kauravas, i.e. Dharma versus Adharma. But the concept here is entirely different. In this case, it means Christians versus non-Christians, or Muslims versus non-Muslims.

The concept of Armageddon exists not only in Christianity but also in Islam, though under a different name. The term appears in the Christian New Testament, the principal collection of scriptures concerning the teachings of Jesus Christ. In Islam, the concept is mentioned in the Hadith, which is the most important religious text after the Qur'an, where it is referred to as "Al-Malhama Al-Kubra" - the Great Final War. The objective of both these religions is to establish dominance over the world. The underlying doctrine is clear: "If someone does not accept my religion, it is my religious right to forcibly bring him under my control."

This exclusivist ideology, rooted in rejection of all others, is the driving force behind such wars. In his book Infidels: A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam, Andrew Wheatcroft effectively documents how these two Abrahamic religions have demonised each other for a millennium. The world, and particularly Indian Hindus, must recognise this reality. According to both these religions, this religious war will either result in the end of human civilisation or lead to their global domination. Such a concept does not exist in Indian religions. Therefore, the minds of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and others cannot even comprehend such irrational and demonic thinking.

Religious Interests

Some may argue that describing the confrontation between Israel and the United States on one side and Iran on the other as a religious war is irrational and unrealistic. But this may not be entirely incorrect. If the claims made by the American organisation Military Religious Freedom Foundation are true, the situation appears exactly so. According to the organisation, at least 200 soldiers have lodged complaints stating that their military superiors have been linking the war with Iran to the concept of Armageddon while motivating troops. These complaints reportedly came from 40 branches of the U.S. military operating across different regions.

This is particularly significant because such behaviour violates the official principles of the U.S. military. American journalist Jonathan Larsen has further claimed that U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has elevated Evangelical Christianity to an influential position within the upper echelons of the American military. Monthly prayer meetings are reportedly broadcast throughout the Pentagon. The religious preacher leading these gatherings, Ralph Drollinger, allegedly teaches American military officers that "God has commanded the United States to support Israel."

If Larsen's claims are to be believed, it becomes evident that the close alliance between the United States and Israel is driven less by geopolitical or economic interests, such as control over Middle Eastern oil, and more by religious motivations.

For Christians, the land of Israel holds immense historical and religious significance. It is where Jesus Christ was born, where he grew up, where he performed miracles, and where he was ultimately crucified. Therefore, it is almost certain that Christian America will support Jewish Israel until the very end of the world.

The Curious Claims

Now observe something even more striking.

Reports from outlets such as BBC and Al Jazeera note that some Pentagon military officers have gone so far as to claim that Donald Trump himself has been anointed by Jesus Christ to carry out this mission. According to them, this war forms part of God's divine plan, and after it concludes, Jesus Christ will return to Earth, fulfilling the biblical prophecy mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the New Testament.

A rational, scientifically minded individual would naturally find this absurd. But that is what it is. The reason is obvious: how could God possibly choose a volatile global leader like Trump as His instrument? Yet today, the dominance and influence of this very American president are evident. He takes actions against any country at will, and no other nation, however powerful, appears willing to speak even a word against these destructive acts.

This Christian fanaticism in the United States is nothing new. As per the American weblog - "Lobelog", former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo frequently stated that his Bible "informs everything I do." He famously keeps an open Bible on his desk and has described his role as being a "good steward" of the position God entrusted to him. He often framed U.S. support for Israel in religious terms, once telling the Christian Broadcasting Network that God might have raised up Donald Trump to save the Jewish people from Iran, similar to the biblical Queen Esther.

A convert to Catholicism with deep ties to conservative Christian organisations, Erik Prince (Former Navy SEAL) has often viewed American military intervention as a tool to protect Western civilisation.

As per DaySpring Christian Academy, Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, a legendary figure in the U.S. Special Operations community, became a lightning rod for controversy in 2003 when he gave speeches in uniform describing the War on Terror as a spiritual battle. He famously stated that Islamic terrorists hate America because "we're a Christian nation" and our "roots are Judeo-Christian."

(President George Bush being informed about the September 11 Attacks)

As an aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, American President George W. Bush declared war on terrorism and to eliminate Al-Qaeda. In the offensive campaign, he referred to it as a "crusade", viz., a religious war against the non-believers - the Islamists. Notwithstanding that, the centrifugal force of American politics is around Christianity alone - not only against Islamic principles, but also against pagans - the Hindus. A few illustrations to make it crystal clear.

Bobby Jindal, the former Governor of Louisiana, was originally a Hindu named Piyush Jindal. However, to advance in American politics, he had to abandon his religion. So much so that his X bio has the first word - "Christian".

The same story applies to Nikki Haley, former Governor of South Carolina, who was originally Nimrata Randhawa, born into a Sikh family.

A very recent example cited here is the rising Hindu face in American politics, Purnima Nath of Wisconsin, who was reportedly expelled from the Republican Party because she spoke out against injustices faced by Hindus and criticised the white supremacist tendencies in American politics. Such is the extent of religious fanaticism within Christian America.

'Purvapaksha' and 'Uttarapaksha'

Now, this discussion has to be seen in the Indian worldview, which is mostly absent, be it in academia or in the debate of global politics and the predominant narrative. Some nations have criticised the offensive of US-led Israeli attacks on Iran prominently, the killing of Khamenei, like Turkey, China, Russia, etc.

India has categorically been silent on this operation. The Indian National Congress, however (which consistently advocates for Muslim interests), has been insisting that Prime Minister Narendra Modi must condemn the death of Khamenei. Ironically, Khamenei himself could be viewed as a victim of the same religious fanaticism that exists within Christianity. Although rationally, Trump and his allies don't have the moral right to eliminate the Iranian Supreme Leader, their religious mindset drives them to do the same.

Now ponder over, who understands Islamic fanaticism better than Indian citizens themselves?

Indians have been equally facing the Islamic terror attacks as the Israelis. So, is there really a need for the Indian PM to assert or take a side in this war aimed at gaining control over the world? The demands raised by Congress and certain so-called "progressive" elements appear childish and intellectually hollow when looking at it from the aforesaid worldview.

(The famous debate between Shankaracharya and Mandana Mishra, the best example of the ancient Indian tradition of Purvapaksha and Uttarapaksha)

Going further, Hindu Dharma gave the world a powerful and noble intellectual tradition: the tradition of Purvapaksha and Uttarapaksha, a system of presenting opposing viewpoints and responding to them through reasoned debate. As per Rajiv Malhotra's pathbreaking book - "Being Different - An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism", it was quite unfortunate that during the medieval period, Hindus failed to practice this tradition actively. As a result, they were compelled to submit in almost all realms before the exclusionist Islamic and Christian faiths. Reviving this logical and respectful tradition of debate to confront these ideologies is the need of the hour.

Malhotra's observation appears more relevant today than ever before. If this revival occurs, the arguments of Congress and other anti-Hindu forces will collapse instantaneously. Cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal's statement, "Support the country in which you live; otherwise go and live in the country you support" will then be understood not merely by the world, but at least by Hindus themselves. And they will realise that Armageddon has absolutely nothing to do with Hindus.

A parallel lens!

Now, let us examine these developments from another perspective. If a developed country like the United States places Christianity at the centre - making it, in many ways, a driving force behind the shaping of its agendas and policies relating to foreign affairs, security and sovereignty; and if Islamic nations openly proclaim the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate and a Dar-ul-Islam across the world, then it becomes evident that major religions often assert themselves in pursuit of civilizational and religious objectives. In such a scenario, why should Hindus hesitate to raise a clarion call for a Hindu Rashtra in their own motherland? Is such a demand not entirely constitutional?

One must also remember that the inherent tenets of Hindu Dharma are not exclusivist in nature. They stand in genuine harmony with the entire human race and do not propagate apocalyptic visions of an inevitable "End Times". For example, the Rig Veda (1.164.46) states : Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti ("Truth is one, but the wise refer to it by many names.") Scholars like Anantanand Rambachan argue that this isn't merely "tolerance" (which implies putting up with something you dislike), but a deep validation of diverse spiritual paths.

A Western example to validate the greatness of Hindu Dharma - German Indologist and scholar from the 20th century, Wilhelm Halbfass explored the concept of "Inclusivism" in Indian thought. He noted that Hindu Dharma tends to submerge or "include" other perspectives within its own expansive framework rather than seeking to eradicate them, which is the case with Abrahamic world religions.

Let this reflection sink into a society that often thinks only within the limits of superficial narratives imposed upon it. At the very least, Hindus must be clear and resolute about their moral responsibility towards the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra.

Last word. From this lens, one can definitely infer that Armageddon has a lot to offer to Hindu society. Jayatu Jayatu Hindu Rāṣhṭram!

A Final Note

If the great Hindu tradition of Purvapaksha and Uttarapaksha is revived, the hypocrisy of anti-Hindu forces will be exposed, and they will ultimately be driven out of the national discourse.