IRAN ATTACK: excuses, reasons and a Christian perspective

DISCLAIMER

It is premature to predict how the renewed conflict between the USA and Iran will unfold, how long it may persist, or what lasting effects it will have on the region. What can be of value, however, is to examine the possible reasons behind the attack and the broader regional dynamics that shape these events.

RENEWED ATTACKS

Shortly after 09:30 Tehran time (06:00 GMT) on Saturday 28 February 2026, Iranian state media reported multiple explosions in the capital. Images reviewed by the BBC showed smoke rising over Jomhouri Square and Hassan Abad Square. Verified videos also captured plumes of smoke across Tehran, including one filmed within a kilometre of Leadership House, the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It remains unclear whether the building itself was struck. Another verified photo showed thick, dark smoke rising above residential blocks and small grocery shops.

Explosions were also reported in several other cities, including Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, and Kermanshah. The scale of casualties or injuries is not yet known even though there are reports of a strike at a primary school for girls in southern Iran that resulted in more than 85 deaths, almost all of them young girls, between seven and 12 years old, according to Iran’s Tasnim and Fars news agencies.

REGIONAL RESPONSE

• Israel: The Israeli military stated that Iran launched missiles toward its territory and that it is working to “intercept and strike threats where necessary.” Explosions were heard in Haifa and other locations, though it is unclear whether these were direct impacts or successful interceptions.
• Bahrain: The state news agency reported that the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet service centre in Bahrain was targeted in a missile attack. Prior to this, Bahrain’s interior ministry activated emergency sirens and urged residents to remain calm and seek shelter.
• Qatar: The defence ministry announced it had “successfully countered a number of attacks” after explosions were heard in Doha, according to state media.

WHY THE ATTACKS? EXCUSES VS. REASONS

In every war, there are both stated excuses for military action and the underlying reasons driving geopolitical aggression.

The Official Excuse: Nuclear Weapons

The justification repeatedly given for strikes against Iran is its nuclear program.  There are two points to consider why this excuse do not hold ground anymore.

1. Longstanding Narrative: This line of argument has been used for decades. Benjamin Netanyahu has been warning about Iran’s nuclear ambitions for decades. His earliest public statements on the issue date back to the late 1980s and early 1990s, when he began framing Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel. Analysts note that he has maintained a consistent message for nearly forty years which only resulted in aggression from Israel’s side and not Iran’s.  If a lie is repeated often enough it seems to eventually be believed as truth .
2. Trump’s Position: Donald Trump built up a vast U.S. military presence in the region, aiming to pressure Tehran into concessions during nuclear negotiations. He described the current operation as “massive” and insisted it was intended to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  The contradiction, however, is evident: During earlier attacks in June 2025, Trump declared that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been “obliterated.” Yet, the justification for the new strikes is again framed around the nuclear program.

This raises a critical inconsistency:  Either the facilities were not destroyed in 2025, despite claims at the time.  Or they were destroyed, and the nuclear program is being used once again as a pretext for broader military objectives.

In either case, the coalition’s narrative appears contradictory, suggesting that the nuclear issue may serve more as a political cover than the true reason for escalation.

THE GEOPOLITICAL REASONS

Beyond the nuclear rhetoric, several deeper motives are at play:

1. Dethroning the Ayatollah

The idea is that Washington wants to remove Iran’s clerical leadership (the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Republic system) to weaken Iran’s regional influence.  Exiled opposition figures, especially Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah, have positioned himself as the alternative leader by taking control of  the nation once the Ayatollah is deposed. He has openly spoken about a “post-Islamic Republic transition” and has support among some diaspora groups and Western policymakers, including Pres. Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu .

Critics argue that U.S. interest in Pahlavi is less about democracy and more about installing a friendly regime that would align with Western strategic interests.

2. Oil Control

Iran and Venezuela together hold some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world.  The narrative suggests that by destabilizing or controlling these two governments, the U.S. could dominate global energy flows.

This would serve two purposes:  Firstly, energy leverage: Ensuring Western allies have secure oil supplies.  Secondly, strategic denial: Preventing adversaries (China and Russia) from accessing cheap, reliable energy from these states.

Objective number 1 has already been obtained – controlling energy flow from Venezuela.  All that is left now is to dethrone the current Iranian regime and replace it with someone that will serve the interests of the USA and Israel.

3. Blocking China and Russia

Both Beijing and Moscow have deepened ties with Iran and Venezuela:  Firstly, China is a major buyer of Iranian oil despite sanctions, and a strategic partner in infrastructure and trade.  Secondly Russia shares a close military cooperation with Iran, and energy partnerships with Venezuela.

By targeting these regimes, the U.S. could limit China and Russia’s access to energy resources, weakening their economic and geopolitical reach.

4. Regional Power Balance:

Weakening Iran reduces its influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, where it supports allied militias.

5. Security Guarantees:

Israel seeks to neutralize Iran’s capacity to project power across the region. Maintaining a heavy military footprint in the Gulf allows Washington to pressure Tehran economically and politically, while reassuring allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel.

7. Energy and Trade Routes:

Control over Gulf shipping lanes and oil infrastructure remains a strategic priority.

THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE ON WAR AND PEACE

From a biblical standpoint, there are methods of waging war and pursuing peace that contradict the Word of God. Regardless of political alliances or national interests, these practices should be opposed because they undermine the call of Christ to be peacemakers.

1. Achieving Peace by Force

Donald Trump has declared himself a man of peace and even appointed himself as the chairman of the Board of Peace while simultaneously relying on force to impose his vision. Peace can never be achieved by force. Scripture teaches that true peace is not born out of coercion or domination. Biblical peace flows from dialogue, reconciliation, forgiveness, and transparency. If we dismiss these methods as “naïve,” we risk nullifying the message of the cross and the call to embody Christ’s example as peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).

2. Achieving Peace by imposing sanctions

Economic sanctions are often imposed with the hope of toppling dictators and implementing a democracy that will lead to peace.  But this method rarely affects ruling elites. Instead, they burden ordinary citizens, leading to poverty, unrest, and suffering among the innocent. Poverty breeds desperation, protests, and instability. This approach contradicts the biblical mandate to care for the poor and oppressed (Proverbs 14:31; Isaiah 58:7).

3. Achieving Peace by Division

Encouraging citizens to rise up against their own nation under the promise of a “better future” is a destructive tactic rooted in division. It is not of God but of the enemy, who seeks to sow suspicion, chaos, and ruin. Syria stands as a tragic example of how external powers fuelled division, leaving a nation shattered. The Christian vision of peace calls for unity, hope, and the building of communities—not their destruction (Psalm 133:1).

4. Achieving Peace by Deception

Another dangerous practice is the use of propaganda, false promises, and hidden agendas to manipulate nations or peoples. Deception may achieve short-term gains, but it erodes trust and violates the biblical command to walk in truth (John 8:32). Peace built on lies is fragile and destined to collapse.

CONCLUSION

The Christian perspective insists that peace must be pursued through righteousness, justice, and love. Any method that relies on force, poverty, division, or deception stands in opposition to the teachings of Christ. As followers of Jesus, we are called to resist these false paths and instead embody the gospel’s vision of reconciliation and unity.

PRAYER FOR IRAN

Heavenly Father,

We come before You with heavy hearts for the people of Iran. Lord, You see their struggles, their fears, and their hopes. We ask that Your peace, which surpasses all understanding, would rest upon this nation.

• Protect the innocent and comfort those who suffer.
• Guide leaders toward wisdom, justice, and reconciliation.
• Strengthen families and communities to stand together in unity and hope.
• Let Your light shine in the midst of darkness, bringing healing where there is pain and hope where there is despair.

Lord, we believe that You are the God of peace, not of division. May Your Spirit move across Iran, turning hearts toward compassion and truth. We pray for reconciliation, for dialogue instead of violence, and for a future built on justice and mercy.

In Jesus’ name, Amen.