Did commanders tell troops that Donald Trump was ‘chosen by Jesus’ to lead the Iran war?

A wave of complaints from US service members has alleged that military commanders have linked the war with Iran to biblical end-times prophecy, including references to Armageddon and the return of Jesus, according to reporting by veteran journalist Jonathan Larsen on his Substack newsletter.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) says it has received more than 110 complaints from troops across the US armed forces. The reports involve more than 40 units at at least 30 military installations, Larsen reported. Some complaints describe commanders framing the war as part of God’s plan and invoking biblical prophecy during official briefings.

One complaint alleges that a commander told officers that President Donald Trump had been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth”.

Another email from a service member described similar messaging delivered to troops in a unit outside the Iran combat zone but on ready-support status. The non-commissioned officer (NCO) said the commander encouraged leaders to relay a religious interpretation of the conflict.

According to the email, the commander “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ”.

The message was reportedly sent to the MRFF on behalf of 15 troops, including at least 11 Christians, one Muslim and one Jewish service member. The NCO warned that such remarks could damage morale and unit cohesion, adding that they were “in violation of the oaths we swore to support the Constitution”.

Larsen reported that the MRFF is withholding the identities of complainants to prevent potential retaliation from the Department of Defense.

MRFF president Mikey Weinstein told Larsen the organisation had been “inundated” with complaints since the attacks on Iran began. He argued that introducing religious ideology into official military communications could breach constitutional protections as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“Any military members seeking to take advantage of their subordinates by advancing their blood-soaked, Christian nationalist wet dreams upon the flames of this latest non-Congressionally sanctioned attack against Iran should be swiftly, aggressively and visibly prosecuted,” Weinstein said.

The group says similar complaints tend to arise during conflicts in the Middle East involving Israel. Weinstein said the MRFF frequently receives reports about Christian end-times theology when tensions escalate in the region.

The controversy comes amid a broader debate over the influence of evangelical Christianity in US politics and military culture. Larsen’s report noted that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has promoted religious gatherings within the Pentagon and the White House.

ALSO READ | Iran warship sinking: Trump & Co's worryingly dangerous maneuvers in Indian Ocean

Monthly prayer meetings have reportedly been broadcast within the Pentagon. Hegseth also attends a weekly White House Bible study led by preacher Ralph Drollinger, which emphasises theological arguments in support of Israel. At a recent government prayer event, Hegseth said: “This is, I think, exactly where we need to be as a nation, at this moment, in prayer, on bended knee, recognising the providence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Critics argue that the growing visibility of Christian nationalism within national security institutions raises questions about whether religious ideology is influencing military messaging or strategy. Supporters counter that faith has long played a role in American public life.

The allegations surface as the Trump administration faces mounting scrutiny over its rationale for launching the war against Iran. Reporting by Politico and the Financial Times suggests the White House has struggled to present a consistent explanation for the conflict.

Officials have cited a range of justifications, including nuclear threats, ballistic missile development and the defence of Israel. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration acted pre-emptively to prevent future attacks. “We knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” he told reporters.

However, critics say the rationale has shifted repeatedly. Democratic congressman Jake Auchincloss told the Financial Times that President Trump had offered “four different rationales for the war in the last 72 hours”.

ALSO READ | US uses torpedo again: What makes this World War-era weapon so deadly?

Some allies within the president’s political base have also expressed concern. A former Trump administration official told Politico that rising casualties could alter public opinion. “I don’t put a timeline, I put a bodycount,” the official said.

Republican strategist Matthew Bartlett warned that questions about the war’s purpose could intensify if the conflict drags on, while communications executive Vanessa Santos said support among the president’s base would depend heavily on how quickly the war concludes. “MAGA is not anti-force; it is anti-forever war,” she said.

The trajectory of the US-Iran conflict may hinge on both its duration and whether the administration can articulate a clear strategy. President Trump has offered differing timelines, at times suggesting the fighting could end within weeks, while at others warning it could continue indefinitely. “Whatever it takes,” he said.

As the war reshapes regional geopolitics — destabilising oil markets, disrupting shipping routes and triggering retaliatory strikes across the Middle East — the allegations of religious rhetoric within military briefings risk adding a further layer of controversy to an already fraught and fast-moving conflict.