West Asia Crisis — Discussion, Developments, and Bharat’s Strategy

[A_Gupta]

Further:

Except that there is no real rival empire/alliance - economic or military - anywhere in the vicinity for decades ahead. Massa also holds much much superior economic/military power to crush any one trying. So Trump can say such things. Such is the state of the world now.

On the downward side:

Trump wasn't visible in 2014. Twelve years later, you can see what he has done to the US of A.

AI assures me, when I ask it "In 1935 did it seem the sun would set on the British Empire?" : "In 1935, it did not yet seem inevitable that the sun would set on the British Empire. To most observers at the time, Britain looked weakened but still fundamentally stable, recovering from the Great Depression and maintaining global military, naval, and financial influence. The sense of irreversible imperial decline only hardened after 1940, not in the mid‑1930s."

Twelve years later, the jewel in the crown of the British Empire, India won its independence.

So empires do collapse that rapidly.

And that is to somebody or the other's advantage.

[uddu]

Replacement coming
USS Gerald R Ford Set To Rejoin Iran War; US Mega Warship Returns After Fire Scare | Gulf Conflict
The world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, is heading back to the Middle East after undergoing repairs in Croatia following a fire onboard. The US mega warship is now set to rejoin operations near Iran, boosting American naval presence in a region already witnessing rising tensions.

[chetak]

Around 6,24,000 passengers have travelled to India since 28 February from West Asia, says Indian Govt

Amber ji,



they will all be demanding jobs, compensation and govt support


some of these guys will be made to kick up a stink because many state elections are just round the corner

[Y. Kanan]

All things considered, I'm surprised this forum isn't up in arms. At the very least, I would think the consensus to be "decouple from the US going forward" if not "boycott America". This isn't horrifying to us? Wiping out all the leaders in a surprise attack during negotiations? Destroying bridges, power plants and infrastructure? It should be obvious the "plan" is simply to have Iran in chaos for decades to come, with (most importantly) their cheap oil denied to China and denied to us.

[A_Gupta]

> At the very least, I would think the consensus to be "decouple from the US going forward" if not "boycott America". This isn't horrifying to us?

Then India should boycott China (e.g., Tibet, Uighurs), Russia (Ukraine), Israel (Gaza), Iran (its own people, on numerous occasions), the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and so on.

Performative outrage has its place; but often it is that old classic trolley problem - which way to divert a train when one way kills five strangers and the other way kills your child? In this case one side is the needs of 1.4 billion people and the other side is some distant people.

You should be happy that most people on BRF have grown up way beyond the juvenile performative outrage, which apart from imparting to the performer an artificial sense of moral satisfaction accomplishes little else.

[A_Gupta]

CBS News reports:
American fighter jet shot down over Iran, 1 crew member rescued, U.S. officials say
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/americ ... over-iran/

Washington — A U.S. F-15E fighter jet was shot down over Iran on Friday, and one crew member from the plane was later rescued by American forces, U.S. officials confirmed to CBS News.

The F-15E is flown by a two-member crew, and the search for the second crew member, a weapons system officer, is continuing, two U.S. officials said.

The jet was shot down by Iranian forces, the officials said, and the combat rescue mission ensued shortly after. An A-10 Warthog was part of the search and rescue mission when it took fire and was damaged. The Warthog pilot ejected over the Persian Gulf and was successfully recovered, according to the officials.

Two helicopters also took part in the search and rescue mission and successfully retrieved the F-15E pilot who had ejected, officials said. The helicopter carrying the recovered pilot was hit by small arms fire, wounding crew members on board, according to the officials, who said the helicopter landed safely. All service members are receiving initial medical treatment and will be transported for further medical care.

[Tanaji]

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 026-04-03/

An A10 Warthog went down.

This is amazing though - American media referring to it as crashing rather than shot down. Meanwhile the very same media wrote pages of articles of 5-6 Indian planes being shot down despite there being no crash debris pictures or videos.

[A_Gupta]

Yes, the CBS article said: “ An A-10 Warthog was part of the search and rescue mission when it took fire and was damaged. The Warthog pilot ejected over the Persian Gulf and was successfully recovered, according to the officials.”

So there were two aircraft lost due to enemy fire, not one. .

The Washington Post has the headline: “Two US warplanes shot down, search ongoing in Iran for 1 missing crew member”

I am not on Twitter/X but supposedly the CENTCOM handle has denied any loss from enemy fire.

[Jay]

I am not on Twitter/X but supposedly the CENTCOM handle has denied any loss from enemy fire.

Yeah, I would not trust CENTCOM twitter any more than "baghdad bob" or "comical ali" at this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loujYg0y7Vk

[Manish_Sharma]

All things considered, I'm surprised this forum isn't up in arms. At the very least, I would think the consensus to be "decouple from the US going forward" if not "boycott America". This isn't horrifying to us? Wiping out all the leaders in a surprise attack during negotiations? Destroying bridges, power plants and infrastructure? It should be obvious the "plan" is simply to have Iran in chaos for decades to come, with (most importantly) their cheap oil denied to China and denied to us.

All things considered, I'm surprised Y. Kanan ji wasn't up in arms whenever again & again iran khamenei were exhorting for breaking India & taking potshots at us on every venue wrt Kashmir:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 966016.cms

[Tanaji]

So there have been 4 theories proposed on why US attacked Iran:

Theory 1:
The US feels that the time is ripe to extend US hegemony for another 50 years. For this, they must control energy flows for itself and more importantly deprive others of the same. This would enable US to cut the Euros, China and India to size ensuring its primacy. Therefore US took care of Venezuela first as backup for its energy needs and has increased its own production to make it self sufficient. Attacking Iran and keeping the region in flux enables this aim. This theory also implies that an inner group of Deep state/strategist/patriots/cabal/Bilderbergs.. whatever you call them are at work. This theory also is beyond the acumen and thinking required of Trump.

Theory 2:
Bibi Netanyahu and the Yehudis really control the world. They somehow managed to convince Trump to attack Iran for their own interests. Trump acquiesced because he wanted to show himself as the true friend of Jews, a strongman and this act if successful would ensure his legacy as one of the most impactful presidents of recent times.

Theory 3:
It is a cynical attempt at diverting local populace attention from Epstein files and help in the mid terms. No cost is too high to pay for this especially as it is being paid by the US taxpayer. It also has the added benefit of providing opportunities for stock market insider trading and make millions for Trump and his cronies. Also the strongman angle in play as well. Given how narcissistic the person is, this seems on brand.

Theory 4:
Russia has kompromat on him and is forcing him to do it.

I find theory 4 most unlikely with #3 the most likely one…. None explains everything fully though. Any other reasons people can think of?

[vera_k]

Theory 2 certainly, since Israel and Iran have been in conflict since 1985.

Sold to Trump as helping with #3. And #$, Trump saw a way to justify a military buildup and make some $$$.

[A_Gupta]

There is also the American Christian Nationalist belief that this war will help bring the biblical Armageddon.

—-
Or Bob Kagan and Tim Miller in The Bulwark:

But it wasn't the American military that took the initial step of taking out Iran's air defenses, which is the most dangerous element of the was the most dangerous elements operation. and which the United States would not have done because it was too risky for the stakes.

Israel, because of October 7th, completely changed its risk calculus and was basically, we have to do whatever we need to do. And so they did undertake the risk in the first instance of taking out the air defenses, which allowed us to then come in and prove how tough we were.

And then when they said we could take out the whole leadership, Trump just said, oh boy, do it. And it's the Israelis who took it out, not us. They were the ones who've launched a daytime raid, which is also very risky. So I think Trump just thought,
I can come swooping in and I'll be the guy who took out the mullahs and it'll be over. And then- I'm riding shotgun. These guys are really talented. I'm going to get the credit. This is a classic Trump story. Like, other people are going to do the work. I'm going to get the credit.

Exactly. Exactly. And because he... despite his reputation for playing five-dimensional chess, I don't think he plays one-dimensional checkers, he didn't really go through what the possible downsides of this action. He thought he saw an easy operation. So this whole grand strategy, what is Trump doing? Trump's doing what he always did.

He saw a shiny object, and he thought he could grab it, and so he grabbed it.

[williams]

Theory 1 is definitely beyond the acumen and thinking required of Trump and his politically appointed team. I also doubt they will listen to second rung bureaucrats on anything sensible. I am more inclined to believe Theory 2 with the twist that Mossad has kompromat on him and hence made him do it.

[bala]

The bigger theory everyone is missing is China. The deal that China had with Iran centered around crude oil supply and now that hormuz is clamped down, china's supply problem is worsened. China is a large consumer of oil. What this means is that its domestic supply is in jeopardy. There are other things that Iran exposed. China weapons and military tech is really rubbish. It failed in Op Sindoor, Venezeula now Iran. The rest of world is laughing at performance of Chinese maal. For the US it is always about oil supply and the close tie to the dollar as the petro-dollar it is known. The invasion into Iran is aided by CIA/US Deep State/Israel and the China factor. Russia is also not to keen to help China and infact turned its tankers towards India. Russia's main customer is Europe and Indian refining of crude is sold to the Euros. Between India and Russia this is a cozy setup. Now Russia is saying that there are interested in gas supply to India.

One thing China depends upon is Helium from Qatar and this is required for semiconductors. China play of rare earth is their only card. But without semiconductors their high tech is kaput and so are their cars. US now will dictate terms to China, since they will control ME completely. The ME countries are nanga without US security cover.

[Cain Marko]

So there have been 4 theories proposed on why US attacked Iran:

Theory 1:
The US feels that the time is ripe to extend US hegemony for another 50 years. For this, they must control energy flows for itself and more importantly deprive others of the same. This would enable US to cut the Euros, China and India to size ensuring its primacy. Therefore US took care of Venezuela first as backup for its energy needs and has increased its own production to make it self sufficient. Attacking Iran and keeping the region in flux enables this aim. This theory also implies that an inner group of Deep state/strategist/patriots/cabal/Bilderbergs.. whatever you call them are at work. This theory also is beyond the acumen and thinking required of Trump.

Theory 2:
Bibi Netanyahu and the Yehudis really control the world. They somehow managed to convince Trump to attack Iran for their own interests. Trump acquiesced because he wanted to show himself as the true friend of Jews, a strongman and this act if successful would ensure his legacy as one of the most impactful presidents of recent times.

Theory 3:
It is a cynical attempt at diverting local populace attention from Epstein files and help in the mid terms. No cost is too high to pay for this especially as it is being paid by the US taxpayer. It also has the added benefit of providing opportunities for stock market insider trading and make millions for Trump and his cronies. Also the strongman angle in play as well. Given how narcissistic the person is, this seems on brand.

Theory 4:
Russia has kompromat on him and is forcing him to do it.

I find theory 4 most unlikely with #3 the most likely one…. None explains everything fully though. Any other reasons people can think of?

Add to this #5. Christian nationalism and Israeli interest. And #6 GCC and greater Arabian sea desire to defang Iran (this includes India IMHO).

I'm sticking with theory 7: All of the above. It's a perfect storm that brought together an these factors and they pulled the trigger.

[Hriday]

Israel is continuing mass bombing of Iranian targets every day. I don't think the media had recognised the extraordinary nature of it. Nobody would have believed that it is possible about 1 month ago. As this bombing campaign continues how long can Iran continue with daily barrage of ballistic missiles? Possibly in two weeks time Iran may run out of missiles. Highly likely Trump's decision to continue war is based on this. Not only missiles, Iran will find it industries and power infrastructure also got destroyed which will likely cause mass revolt from people.

I am certain that unless the people of Iran were provoked to revolt against regime, Hormuz straight will not be free. And that is what Israel and USA is likely planning. Really bad days is coming for Iranian people.

[Manish_P]

...
I'm sticking with theory 7: All of the above. It's a perfect storm that brought together an these factors and they pulled the trigger.

+1

As the desi saying goes - 'Behti ganga main haath dhona' going on

[williams]

Israel is continuing mass bombing of Iranian targets every day. I don't think the media had recognised the extraordinary nature of it. Nobody would have believed that it is possible about 1 month ago. As this bombing campaign continues how long can Iran continue with daily barrage of ballistic missiles? Possibly in two weeks time Iran may run out of missiles. Highly likely Trump's decision to continue war is based on this. Not only missiles, Iran will find it industries and power infrastructure also got destroyed which will likely cause mass revolt from people.

I am certain that unless the people of Iran were provoked to revolt against regime, Hormuz straight will not be free. And that is what Israel and USA is likely planning. Really bad days is coming for Iranian people.

After the first week of bombing, the goal shifted from regime change to stopping Iran from launching attacks. Four weeks later, Iran is still firing a few missiles and drones each day. By April 1, they had launched 200 missiles. I was skeptical about these numbers. If Iran’s capabilities were really being reduced, even at a slow rate, they should be finished by now. There have been over 15,000 targets hit with 200 to 300 strikes each day. Here’s an Israeli analysis from yesterday:

https://israel-alma.org/daily-report-th ... 2026-1600/

Now, the Trump administration hopes the conflict will end in another two or three weeks. If there hasn’t been a revolt in the past four weeks, is it likely to happen soon? Another question is, if Iran refuses to negotiate, why haven’t the US and Israel targeted the power plants yet? The fact that they haven’t suggests they still worry Iran could strike back. Finally, with US gas prices at $4.10, how long can the administration keep public support for the war?

If this campaign succeeds, it will probably be the first war in which political victory is achieved against a reasonably large country with an air campaign alone. It will make a mockery of 100s of skilled military analysts saying that such results can only be achieved by boots on the ground. There is some evidence that the Trump administration and Pentagon planners are not on the same page regarding the conclusion of this conflict. The problem is that neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Pete Hegseth is the type who will listen to reason. Generals will get fired if they try to debate the civilian leader's logic. So, unless Congress intervenes with a funding cut, this is going to be another disaster in making for the US IMO.

[A_Gupta]

Questions:
1. Doesn’t Israel need to use Iraqi airspace to bomb Iran?
2. I suppose the Shia government of Iraq does not want this but are powerless to prevent it. Yes or No?
3. Are there any indications that Russia or China are helping Iraq beef up their air defense?

[A_Gupta]

https://shafaq.com/en/Report/Iraq-s-air ... ad-exposed

Iraq's air defense void: How US vetoes, and Russian limits leave Baghdad exposed

Moscow and Beijing: The Corridor Washington Is Closing

Inside the Iraqi parliament, a faction of legislators tied to the Shiite Coordination Framework— the dominant political bloc governing Baghdad— has concluded that the answer lies east. Mukhtar al-Mousawi, a senior member of the Badr Organization led by Hadi al-Amiri and a key figure within the Framework, put the position directly: "It is illogical to import defense systems from the United States to target its own aircraft. We must turn toward the Russian or Chinese axis." He acknowledged immediately that "Washington is placing a veto on this path."

The statement is politically significant less for what it proposes than for what it reveals: that Iraq's governing coalition —not its opposition— is openly articulating alignment with Moscow and Beijing as a national security necessity.
Iraqi lawmaker Miqdad al-Khafaji of the Hoqooq bloc, the political wing of Kataib Hezbollah, revealed last week that legislators are gathering signatures to summon caretaker Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani and his security ministers for an emergency session, framing the current situation as "a real state of war with America and Israel." A separate legislative initiative is advancing to pass a law specifically funding air defense procurement —a mechanism designed to create statutory pressure for action that executive negotiations have failed to produce.

Whether these maneuvers translate into actual procurement is a different equation. Russia's calculus, according to Asif Melhem, director of the JSM Research Center in Moscow, is more constrained than Baghdad's parliamentary rhetoric.

Moscow's Arithmetic

Melhem argues that the current conflict —which he frames as targeting Iranian and by extension Russian-Chinese regional influence— has concentrated Russian strategic attention on Iraq as "the gateway to West Asia." But Russian willingness to arm Baghdad has hard limits. "Russia can offer a great deal," he told Shafaq News, "but within a precise equation: it cannot provide weapons that constitute a direct strategic threat to America in Iraq right now. What it can offer is defensive deterrence."

That means systems like the S-400, which are capable enough to constrain American air operations, are off the table, at least publicly, because Moscow cannot absorb the diplomatic cost with Gulf states and Turkiye, whose relationships Russia has carefully maintained throughout the Ukraine war and its regional spillovers. Electronic warfare systems and defensive missile batteries occupy a middle ground where Russian engagement is possible, but only if packaged in a way that does not visibly antagonize Riyadh, Ankara, or Abu Dhabi.

The corridor toward Moscow is real. It is also narrow, conditioned, and subject to Russian interests that do not perfectly align with Iraqi ones.

The strategic trap al-Dahlaki describes is, at its core, a trap of alignment —the price Iraq pays for being simultaneously the host of American forces, the political home of Iranian-backed factions, and the geographic center of a regional war it did not choose and cannot exit. Every weapons decision Baghdad faces is also a declaration of whose side it is on.

[A_Gupta]

From: https://understandingwar.org/research/m ... il-3-2026/
Iran Update Special Report, April 3, 2026
(latest available of daily updates).

[A_Gupta]

[A_Gupta]

Charts of the above type, documenting the daily rate of attacks by Iran on GCC states are widely available.
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/i ... opilot.com

Al Jazeera has a day-by-day graphic (pick a day, and the attacks by either side on that day are depicted):
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/1 ... opilot.com

[A_Gupta]

Last - I tried finding a daily chart of drones and missiles launched by Iran towards Israel - whether intercepted or not - and failed.
Gemini.google.com gave me the following numbers for the last two weeks, but I have no idea whether it is hallucinating or what.

Code: Select all

      Date  Missiles  Drones
0   Mar 22        12       8
1   Mar 23        10       7
2   Mar 24        11       6
3   Mar 25        10       5
4   Mar 26        10       6
5   Mar 27        10       5
6   Mar 28         9       4
7   Mar 29         8       5
8   Mar 30         5       3
9   Mar 31         5       4
10   Apr 1        10       6
11   Apr 2        20      12
12   Apr 3        15      10
13   Apr 4        12       8

[A_Gupta]

^^^ My guess is that the AI is hallucinating, But IMO, perhaps the US strategy is to keep bombing Iran till the trend starts showing a definite decline n attacks, while the Iranian strategy is to keep up a steady low-level of attacks as proof that the bombing has not wiped out its capabilities. The not-definite timeline that Trump talked about is because they really don't have good estimates of how much capability Iran has left.

The US has only domestic political constraints against this going on forever; while Iran keeps losing infrastructure, so it will hit physical limits; though perhaps supplies from Russia and China can keep it going for a longer while.

Which side is going to outlast the other?

[A_Gupta]

If this campaign succeeds, it will probably be the first war in which political victory is achieved against a reasonably large country with an air campaign alone. It will make a mockery of 100s of skilled military analysts saying that such results can only be achieved by boots on the ground. There is some evidence that the Trump administration and Pentagon planners are not on the same page regarding the conclusion of this conflict. The problem is that neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Pete Hegseth is the type who will listen to reason. Generals will get fired if they try to debate the civilian leader's logic. So, unless Congress intervenes with a funding cut, this is going to be another disaster in making for the US IMO.

I take it you are saying that an air campaign cannot produce the political victory and that the hundreds of skilled military analysts are not going to be proven wrong. So, the example I thought up was as follows and as CoPilot put it: "Across every major conflict with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel has never been able to achieve decisive strategic outcomes through airpower alone. In every case where Israel sought to meaningfully degrade, dismantle, or coerce these groups, it ultimately required ground forces—and even then, results were mixed. Air campaigns inflicted damage, but they did not produce submission or collapse."

I imagine these above conflicts were where the asymmetry of power was at a maximum, and yet air power alone never worked. This just reinforces what you wrote.

[vera_k]

The US has only domestic political constraints against this going on forever; while Iran keeps losing infrastructure, so it will hit physical limits; though perhaps supplies from Russia and China can keep it going for a longer while.

Which side is going to outlast the other?

The domestic political constraints are about the price of gas. The US is also in a longer term population transition where states opposed to action on Iran are losing population and therefore political power to those supporting the action on Iran. Where this intersects is that the price of gas is disproportionately higher in the states losing political power, and the population remaining there will support even higher gas prices to the tune of $10/gallon. I don't see political constraints forcing a halt from the US therefore. Trump went on national TV April Fools day and in his inimitable style brought up how the Vietnam war lasted 19 years in response to questions asking when this will end!

[A_Gupta]

"Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s US ambassador, captured with precision what must come next: “We need boots on the ground, but they have got to be Iranian boots, and I think they’re coming.” (via https://nypost.com/2026/04/03/opinion/a ... e-in-iran/ )

Is that realistic?

[A_Gupta]

There is no polling data that gives state-by-state support for the war in Iran. By mapping the national level partisan leanings onto state partisan balance, CoPilot comes up with the following synthetic map:

High support (≥50%) clusters in the Deep South, Great Plains, and interior West—places with strong Republican leans (e.g., WY, WV, OK, AL, AR, ID, ND, SD, MS, TN, TX, UT). (123 House seats)

Medium support (40–49%) shows up in swingy or lean‑R states (e.g., AZ, GA, NC, FL, OH, PA, WI, NV, IA, NH). (116 House seats)

Low support (<40%) is concentrated in solidly Democratic states and DC (e.g., CA, NY, MA, MD, WA, OR, IL, NJ, VT, RI, HI). (196 House seats)

[A_Gupta]

Senator John Curtis, Republican Senator from Utah: "I stand by the President’s actions taken in defense of our national security interests in the Middle East. But we must be clear-eyed about history and the Constitution. While I support maintaining our readiness and replenishing stockpiles, I cannot support funding for further military operations without a formal declaration of war from Congress."

https://x.com/SenJohnCurtis/status/2040157416470585709

These Senators have caved in the past to Trump, but still, there is a small amount of defiance. Also, relevant is that Trump supported someone else against John Curtis in the Republican primaries.

Added later:

On the US domestic political constraints on Trump:

so far the votes in the Senate for a war powers resolution have been defeated 50-49. Fetterman (D) defected from the Democratic position, Ryan Paul(R) defected from the Republican position.

Now add John Curtis (R) who has made a public statement in the past week, and potential votes, all Republican - Mike Lee UT, Lisa Murkowski, AK Susan Collins, ME, Todd Young IN, Jerry Moran KS.

Acknowledged that all of these Republicans, except Ryan Paul, are weather-vanes with no strong principles or convictions - they will try to sense the prevailing political winds and will vote accordingly.

[bala]

xPost:

Iran Conflict Cracks Global System, NATO in Trouble, BRICS, Oil & India I Maj Gen Rajiv Narayanan
Aadhi Achint

All kinds of alternatives are being discussed including IMECC in the future.

[A_Gupta]

One more data point: Gerard Baker, editor-at-large of The Wall Street Journal, noted an "unsettling reality" on March 23, 2026, stating that Americans in wartime may feel they have to rely on Iranian information over Donald Trump's claims. Baker described it as unprecedented to suspect the enemy's version of events is more credible than the U.S. President's.

This is (a) Murdoch media and (b) Baker describes himself as a "right-wing curmudgeon".

[Lisa]

American pilot recovered. For those who list American aircraft losses,

https://x.com/ShivAroor/status/2040697789680886140

Much being made of aircraft lost to rescue the F-15 pilot, but all it does it burnish the incredible ‘no man left behind’ credo.

"That the U.S. expended…
2 x HC-130 Herc (destroyed)
2 x HH-60 Pave Hawk (damaged)
A-10 (destroyed) etc
… only makes that commitment shine brighter."

[uddu]

Crusaders Vs Jihadis
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2040448540514656666
@WhiteHouse
“Remember when I gave Iran ten days to MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT. Time is running out - 48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them. Glory be to GOD!” - President DONALD J. TRUMP

[A_Gupta]

That is followed up by: (via
https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/top ... esc&page=1
)

Donald Trump
@realDonaldTrump • April 5, 2026 @ 8:03 AM ET
Truth Social icon
View on Truth Social
Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the ******’ Strait, you crazy ********, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP

Trump uses the f**k word and the b**tard word -- a strange day when the POTUS uses language that that is redacted by BRF forum software.

[Tanaji]

Allah being praised on Easter Sunday no less.

[Manish_P]

Crusaders Vs Jihadis
...

So this would be the 10th crusade?

The 9th crusade was said to be led by Edward Longshanks - Hammer of the Scots. This one is by Donald Orangetop - Trumpet of the Americas.

[A_Gupta]

It is the American Crusade - the title of a book now-Secretary of War Pete Hegseth published in 2020.

Apart from the cultural wars within the US, Hegseth wrote:

We Christians — alongside our Jewish friends and their remarkable army in Israel — need to pick up the sword of unapologetic Americanism and defend ourselves. We must push Islamism back — culturally, politically, geographically, and in the case of evils such as the Islamic State, militarily.

[A_Gupta]

CoPilot synthesizes it thusly:

Short answer: Yes — based on current reporting, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s own language explicitly links the U.S. war with Iran to imagery, symbols, and rhetoric historically associated with the medieval Crusades. This connection isn’t metaphorical or inferred; it is drawn directly from his public statements, his chosen symbols, and his framing of the conflict as a cosmic, religious struggle.

Below is a structured, evidence‑based synthesis grounded entirely in the reporting you saw above.

1. Hegseth’s framing: a cosmic battle between good and evil

Multiple reports describe Hegseth characterizing the war not as a geopolitical conflict but as a spiritual confrontation:

He portrays the war as a “cosmic showdown between good and evil”, with U.S. forces acting as instruments of divine will.

He has prayed publicly for “overwhelming violence” against enemies and described fallen foes as destined for “eternal hellfire.”

Critics quoted in reporting say he is framing the conflict as “Jesus versus Muhammad.”

This is not generic religious language; it is dualistic, absolutist, and explicitly pits Christianity against Islam — the same civilizational framing that underpinned medieval crusading ideology.

2. Use of explicit Crusader symbols and slogans

Hegseth’s personal iconography and past writing reinforce this connection:

He has “Deus Vult” tattooed on his arm — the Latin rallying cry of the First Crusade (“God wills it”).

He bears a Jerusalem cross tattoo, another emblem historically associated with crusading orders.

In his book American Crusade, he rejects the separation of church and state as “leftist folklore,” explicitly invoking the idea of a Christian civilizational struggle.

These are not incidental symbols; they are central motifs of crusading ideology and are being used by the sitting Secretary of War while directing a conflict against a Muslim-majority nation.

3. Religious justification for military action

Hegseth has repeatedly asserted that:

God stands with the United States in the war against Iran.

U.S. troops are protected by “the providence of our almighty God.”

This mirrors the theological logic of the Crusades, where military campaigns were framed as divinely sanctioned missions.

4. How this mirrors historical Crusade rhetoric

The medieval Crusades were characterized by:

A belief in a divinely mandated war

A binary worldview of Christianity vs. Islam

The use of religious symbols (crosses, Latin slogans) to sanctify violence

Promises of spiritual reward or damnation tied to participation

Hegseth’s rhetoric — “good vs. evil,” “Jesus vs. Muhammad,” divine sanction, crusader symbols, and eschatological overtones — maps directly onto this pattern.

5. Why experts say this is unprecedented in modern U.S. policy

According to reporting:

Former officials and scholars say rhetoric of this intensity from a U.S. defense chief has “scant precedent in modern American history.”

Military religious‑freedom advocates warn that this framing supercharges the conflict by turning a geopolitical war into a religious one.

Complaints from service members indicate that some commanders are extending this framing into biblical prophecy and Armageddon narratives, further blurring the line between military policy and religious ideology.

This is exactly the kind of escalation that historically transformed political conflicts into religious wars.