Across political systems, leaders have increasingly invoked religious language and symbolism to legitimize power, frame conflicts as moral or spiritual struggles, and place authority beyond democratic scrutiny. If people are worried about the growing influence of Islam in global politics, they should be equally worried about Christianity-or any religion-when it is fused with state power. In Russia, this fusion of religion and power is explicit. Vladimir Putin has portrayed Western liberalism as morally corrupt and even “satanic,” framing Russia as a civilizational defender of traditional Christian values. This rhetoric is reinforced by senior officials: Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, has described the war in Ukraine as a “sacred battle” against Satan, explicitly invoking Satan, Lucifer, or Iblis. The Russian Orthodox Church, under Patriarch Kirill, has openly blessed the invasion and framed it as a moral struggle, functioning as an ideological partner of the state and sacralizing a war of aggression. This logic is not unique to Christian contexts. In Iran, senior clerical leadership—including the Ayatollah—has long framed its struggle against the West and Israel in cosmic and spiritual terms, portraying political enemies as forces of evil, corruption, or satanic influence. In this worldview, opposition is not merely political disagreement but alignment with metaphysical evil. Hungary provides a similar pattern within a formally democratic system. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán consistently frames his political project as a defense of “Christian democracy” against a morally decayed, post-Christian Europe. While less overtly theological, this framing still uses religion as a civilizational boundary to justify authoritarian governance and resistance to democratic norms. In the United States, religious symbolism has also entered political authority. Donald Trump has framed his leadership in providential terms, stating that he believes God saved his life so that he could “make America great again.” This worldview is echoed by figures in his orbit, such as Pete Hegseth, whose book American Crusade (Crusade?? Really??) explicitly casts contemporary politics as a religious struggle. More recently, official policy language from the Trump administration has characterized “anti-Christianity” as an ideological threat, embedding religious identity directly into national security framing.

We all knew it was just a matter of time, fortunately, he got warned in time to flee his now heavily Islamized homeland to seek a safer country for his family and himself! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrCHdJqiIhk

https://youtube.com/watch?v=uXXORDG3E-s&si=yleqZwhJ9sDXh0Nm

By Reuters Today, 1:11 am The US military is preparing for the possibility of sustained, weeks-long operations against Iran if President Donald Trump orders an attack, two US officials tell Reuters, in what could become a far more serious conflict than previously seen between the countries. The disclosure by the officials, who speak on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the planning, raises the stakes for the diplomacy underway between the United States and Iran. Asked for comment on the preparations for a potentially sustained US military operation, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly says: “President Trump has all options on the table with regard to Iran.” The Pentagon declines to comment. The United States sent two aircraft carriers to the region last year, when it carried out strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. However, June’s “Midnight Hammer” operation was essentially a one-off US attack, with stealth bombers flying from the United States to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran staged a very limited retaliatory strike on a US base in Qatar. The planning underway this time is more complex, the officials say. In a sustained campaign, the US military could hit Iranian state and security facilities, not just nuclear infrastructure, one of the officials says. The official declines to provide specific detail. Experts say the risks to US forces would be far greater in such an operation against Iran, which boasts a formidable arsenal of missiles. Retaliatory Iranian strikes also increase the risk of a regional conflict. The same official says the United States fully expects Iran to retaliate, leading to back-and-forth strikes and reprisals over a period of time. The White House and Pentagon don’t respond to questions about the risks of retaliation or regional conflict.