Vikiho Kiba
Introduction: Between Geopolitics and Sacred Memory. The Israel–Iran conflict is far more than a contest of territorial sovereignty or regional dominance. It is a confrontation deeply embedded in sacred history, ideological absolutism, and theological imagination. The enmity that now defines their relations is rooted not only in the modern ideological rupture of 1979 but in competing visions of history, divine destiny, and sacred legitimacy. Once pragmatic allies under the geopolitical pragmatism of the Shah’s Iran, the two nations are now locked in a theological and strategic standoff with global implications. Understanding this rivalry requires not only political analysis but theological excavation, for the language of enmity here is as much eschatological as it is diplomatic.
However, this period of pragmatic engagement came to an abrupt halt with the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The overthrow of the monarchy and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini marked a seismic shift in Iran’s foreign policy. Iran's ideological framework transformed into a theocratic regime rooted in Shiite eschatology. Israel, once an unofficial partner, was now branded “the Little Satan,” an illegitimate regime standing in opposition to divine order and Muslim unity. The revolution institutionalized a new axis of enmity, casting Israel not merely as a political adversary but as a theological antagonist.
II. Asymmetric Warfare and Proxy Conflict (1980s–2000s). Rather than engage in direct confrontation, post-revolutionary Iran turned to asymmetric warfare through a network of non-state actors. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and a host of Shiite militias across Iraq and Syria became the primary instruments of Iranian regional influence. Through these proxies, Iran established a “forward deterrence” strategy against Israel.
Israel, for its part, responded with equal resolve. Targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists, cyber operations like the Stuxnet virus, and precision airstrikes against Iranian positions in Syria formed a multi-dimensional strategy of containment. What emerged was a pattern of conflict marked by plausible deniability, covert escalation, and mutual suspicion, with neither side willing to engage in full-scale war but both prepared for one.
III. The Abraham Accords and Strategic Realignments (2010–Present). The 2010s ushered in new complexities. The Abraham Accords, brokered in 2020 by the United States, saw Israel normalize diplomatic relations with several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. For Iran, these developments were a betrayal of the Palestinian cause and a strategic encirclement.
In response, Tehran intensified its ties with Eastern powers, particularly Russia and China and entrenched itself further in conflict zones such as Syria. Meanwhile, Israel conducted increasingly overt military operations aimed at disrupting Iranian weapons convoys and infrastructure throughout the Levant. As the ideological chasm widened, so too did the regional balance of power shift into a volatile and precarious equilibrium.
IV. The JCPOA and the Nuclear Chessboard: The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a multilateral agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the UK, the US, and Germany), represented a diplomatic high point in curbing nuclear proliferation. The agreement capped uranium enrichment, reduced centrifuge numbers, and opened Iranian facilities to IAEA inspections in exchange for economic sanctions relief.
Yet the JCPOA was polarizing. Israel vehemently opposed the deal, warning that it legitimized Iran’s nuclear infrastructure without dismantling it. The agreement also left out key concerns, such as Iran’s ballistic missile program and support for terrorism, causing critics to label it dangerously incomplete. In 2018, the Trump administration withdrew unilaterally, reimposing sanctions and effectively dismantling the agreement.
By 2024–2025, the JCPOA lies in diplomatic limbo. Iran has enriched uranium to near weapons-grade levels, and Israel has reiterated its willingness to act unilaterally to prevent Iranian nuclear armament. The failure to revive the agreement reflects a broader diplomatic deadlock, one marked by mistrust, regional instability, and looming confrontation.
V. Current Flashpoints: Escalation or Containment? In the present moment, three strategic flashpoints dominate the Israel–Iran conflict: nuclear brinkmanship, multi-front proxy warfare, and global geopolitical entanglement. The first and most urgent is Iran’s progress toward nuclear breakout. Israeli military doctrine has long held that it cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear state. Preemptive military options are actively considered, with historical precedents in Israel’s strikes on nuclear facilities in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007).
Second, Iran’s support for armed groups has transformed Israel’s borders into potential warzones. Hezbollah’s missile arsenal, Hamas’s destabilizing activities, and the growing Iranian footprint in Syria suggest a scenario of simultaneous multi-front engagement. The 2023 flare-up in Gaza and frequent skirmishes along the Syrian front underscore this risk.
Finally, the global context, Russia’s war in Ukraine, China’s assertiveness in Asia, and American preoccupation with domestic polarization, creates an unstable international framework. The Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil chokepoint, and the broader Gulf region stand as potential theaters for economic and military escalation should the conflict intensify.
VI. Persia in Prophecy: A Theological and Scriptural Reframing. Biblically, Iran’s ancestral identity as Persia invites profound theological paradox. Cyrus the Great, the Persian monarch, is called God's “anointed” in Isaiah 45, a deliverer who facilitated the Jewish return from Babylon and funded the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. Yet modern Iran, claiming this heritage, now seeks the destruction of Israel, reversing its redemptive role.
This inversion resonates with apocalyptic literature. In Ezekiel 38–39, Persia appears among the nations that align with Gog of Magog against Israel. While some interpreters connect this to modern Iran, scholarly consensus warns against overly literal readings. Apocalyptic texts use symbolic imagery to depict cosmic struggles rather than offer predictive maps of geopolitical futures.
Likewise, the Book of Revelation portrays a final confrontation between the forces of evil and the people of God. While nations are depicted as opposing Christ and His people, the purpose is theological, not cartographic. The text’s focus is not on predicting specific national alignments but on proclaiming God’s ultimate sovereignty and encouraging the Church to endure in faith.
VII. The Church, Israel, and Eschatological Identity. The theological complexity deepens when considering divergent Christian views on Israel. Dispensationalist theology tends to emphasize the national restoration of Israel as a literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, casting the modern state as central in end-time scenarios. This view interprets contemporary events, including Iran’s aggression, through a prophetic framework anticipating Christ’s return.
In contrast, covenantal and Reformed traditions see the Church as the true Israel, the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises in Christ. From this perspective, national Israel’s role is not redemptively central in the eschaton but typological. This interpretive division profoundly affects how Christians around the world understand the Iran–Israel conflict, either as apocalyptic fulfillment or historical complexity within divine providence.
Conclusion: Eschatology, Diplomacy, and the Call for Discernment. The Israel–Iran rivalry is a confrontation at once political, theological, and civilizational. It is framed by past alliances and present hostilities, by ancient prophecy and modern weaponry, by visions of divine justice and fears of global war. While some warn of World War III and others point to the fulfillment of end-time prophecy, what is most needed in this moment is not sensationalism but sobriety.
The task for scholars, theologians, and informed citizens is not merely to predict outcomes but to interpret the times with discernment. We are called to uphold peace without ignoring evil, to engage history without surrendering to hysteria, and to remember that divine sovereignty remains operative behind the curtain of human conflict. As the psalmist exhorts, we pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6), not as a political slogan, but as an eschatological hope grounded in the God who governs nations and redeems history.
