Blog

Conflict End Times politics war

Some Thoughts on the Iran War

4 March 2026 Hits:268

As you’re no doubt aware, the weeks of threats from President Donald Trump about attacking Iran have materialised. On Saturday (28 February 2026), the United States and Israel launched military strikes in Iran and killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

I’ve been watching these events and wanted to share reflections on the difficulties of the Iran war and the tensions it raises.

Iran’s Government

The Islamic Republic of Iran has long maintained strict control over political opposition, restricted freedom of speech and religion, and enforced rigorous social codes. Many Iranians—especially women, ethnic and religious minorities, journalists, LGBTQ+ individuals and political dissidents—have endured harsh policies. The courage shown by ordinary Iranians protesting for basic freedoms in recent years reminds us that a nation’s people are not the same as their rulers.

Many Bayside Church members have direct experience with this because several Iranian refugees have been part of our community. In fact, we had two of them on staff a few years ago. We heard their stories of how they escaped their homeland. Because they had converted from Islam to Christianity, their lives were at risk. If they ever returned, they would face torture, imprisonment, or execution.

For these individuals, the bombings evoke both relief at the possible end of oppression and deep anxiety for loved ones still in Iran.

Proxy Groups

Iran’s backing of proxy groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas has created instability across the region. These groups are heavily involved in armed conflicts and are recognised by many nations as terrorist organisations.

The Iranian government’s financial support for the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas helped fund the October 7th attacks against Israel. In this way, the Iranian government maintains cycles of violence that go well beyond its borders. Any serious discussion about regional peace must acknowledge this fact.

Still, hostility towards the regime should not spill over to Iran’s diverse people. War blurs the line between governments and citizens; over 700 civilians have already died.

Israel’s Right to Exist

One of the most destabilising factors in the region has been the rhetoric from Iranian leaders calling for the elimination of Israel. Imagine living next door to a government that openly questions your right to exist. Israel’s security concerns are not hypothetical; they are driven by decades of serious threats.

From Israel’s perspective, rhetoric that questions its legitimacy and supports aggressive proxy groups fosters ongoing insecurity. No nation can endure constant threats to its existence. Peace cannot be achieved by denying a people’s right to exist.

Recognising this still permits criticism of Israeli policy.

America and Regime Change

America’s record with regime change is mixed at best and disastrous at worst. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by claims of weapons of mass destruction that were never found, destabilised the entire region, caused widespread loss of life, and helped fuel the rise of ISIS.

The twenty-year war in Afghanistan was fought to eliminate the terrorist group Al-Qaeda when the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. We all know how that turned out. US support for the 1953 coup in Iran has left deep scars in Iranian political memory.

These episodes have generated scepticism about American intentions whenever conflict appears. Even if strategic concerns are valid, trust remains fragile. The lesson from history is not that the United States should never act, but that military intervention is a blunt tool with unpredictable results. Regime change often seems easier in theory than in practice.

Escalating war must be weighed against history’s record of unintended consequences.

The Nuclear Question

Despite the complexities, one issue stands out as a widespread concern: Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-equipped Iran would markedly shift the strategic balance in the Middle East. It could spark a regional arms race, embolden hard-line factions, and increase the risk of disastrous miscalculation.

Even critics of intervention acknowledge that nuclear proliferation in such a volatile region is dangerous. Diplomacy, sanctions, inspections, and military action all have had mixed results.

Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons, but lasting solutions are difficult. Preventive wars rarely end as planned.

Political Motives and Conspiracy Claims

In times of conflict, political motives are scrutinised closely. This is true of President Donald Trump, with some claiming that the military action is intended to distract from domestic controversies, such as investigations or scandals.

Is the conflict in Iran a distraction from the numerous references to Trump in the Epstein files? Or, as I read yesterday, is it that he aims to demonstrate leverage over China when he meets President Xi Jinping at a crucial summit next month, especially by controlling oil? That was clearly the reason behind the abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in January.

Allegations deserve scrutiny: scepticism is valuable, but baseless cynicism weakens trust. Geopolitical crises defy simple explanations.

Christian Excitement

Perhaps one of the more worrying aspects of any Middle East conflict is the open enthusiasm among some Christians who see wars in the region as signs of the end times.

We need to recognise that much of what evangelical and Pentecostal believers today believe about the end times is based on the Left Behind novels from the nineties rather than a careful study of the scriptures.

The Left Behind books and movies are based on teachings developed in the 18th century by John Nelson Darby, a member of the Plymouth Brethren. Darby went on to establish the Exclusive Brethren sect after George Mueller and other Brethren challenged him about some of his unbiblical doctrines. Charles Spurgeon also asserted that these teachings were false. And yet modern believers have swallowed them hook, line, and sinker. Why? Because they are dramatic and exciting—but also wrong.

Excitement about war in prophetic terms raises moral issues. Jesus’ call to peacemaking opposes a celebratory stance toward conflict. All wars mean real human suffering; Christian ethics should prioritise justice, mercy, and life.

It is possible to hold a robust theology of the last days while still grieving war and praying fervently for peace. Indeed, that posture may be more consistent with the heart of the gospel.

A Final Reflection

And so, to summarise:

• Iran’s government has oppressed its people and fuelled proxy wars.
• Israel faces genuine threats to its survival.
• America carries a complicated history of intervention.
• Nuclear proliferation poses grave dangers.
• Political motives deserve scrutiny.
• And religious zeal for war calls for caution.

War rarely goes as expected. Leaders must act responsibly. People should think critically about information and motives. Believers should pray not for escalation, but for a peace rooted in justice. These are essential points to remember while the situation unfolds—that wars are easy to start and hard to finish.

The stakes in the Iran conflict are enormous—not just for governments, but for millions of ordinary people who want to live safely and carry on with their lives. That reality should influence our tone and strengthen our commitment to find solutions that save lives whenever possible.

Share Us