“Somebody please explain to deranged Tucker Carlson that IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS,” Donald Trump wrote on X on June 17. Then, in the early hours of June 22, the U.S. Air Force conducted pinpoint strikes on three nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic — Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. A logical question arises: why, after years of political containment, have strikes suddenly become necessary? Let’s try to unpack this.
For years, Western politicians and experts have tried to answer what exactly makes Iran’s nuclear program so dangerous — even when compared to already armed states like Pakistan or North Korea. At first glance, the answer seems obvious: it’s the threat to Israel, one of the U.S.’s main strategic partners in the region. But this threat is just the tip of the iceberg. What truly worries the West is not merely the potential use of the weapon, but the ideological foundation upon which it is being developed — a unique blend of religious fanaticism and eschatological worldview within the framework of the Islamic Republic.
Iran’s system of governance is a theocracy, where all key decisions are filtered through religious interpretation. While most countries view nuclear weapons as an extreme deterrent or a tool for political leverage, in Iran’s ideological paradigm, they may be imbued with sacred, transcendent meaning. This is especially true within the ideology that dominates the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — the most powerful security structure in the country, possessing its own armed forces, intelligence, economy, and even a separate foreign policy. It’s important to understand that the IRGC is the actual foundation of the Islamic regime in Iran.
At the heart of Iranian Shiite religious worldview lies the concept of Mahdism — belief in the return of the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who has been in occultation (ghayba) for over a thousand years. His reappearance at the “end of times” is to be preceded by global chaos, wars, crises, and moral decay. This doctrine contains a dangerous shift: for a significant part of the Shiite clergy and radical IRGC commanders, the apocalypse is not something to be feared — it is a necessary condition for the return of the Imam. Their goal is not to prevent catastrophe but to hasten it.
So-called “accelerators of the Mahdi’s return” believe that through human actions — including wars, revolutions, and even nuclear strikes — his return can be brought closer. In this logic, the atomic bomb is no longer a deterrent. It becomes a sacred weapon — a symbol of purification and prophecy, a divine instrument meant to accelerate the final battle between “light” and “darkness.”
This eschatological worldview is tightly linked to sacred Shiite geography. Samarra — the place of Mahdi’s disappearance; Karbala — the site of Imam Hussein’s martyrdom; Jerusalem — the future center of spiritual renewal; and Damascus — the likely field of the final battle. In this paradigm, none of these places are merely geographic locations: each is a potential target, a potential flashpoint of holy war. And each could conceivably be “consecrated” with nuclear fire, as that would bring humanity closer to the eschatological promise.
Equally important is the role of martyrdom in Shiite tradition. From the story of Hussein, considered the ultimate model of self-sacrifice for justice, Shiite culture has developed a deep reverence for martyrs. Even today, Shiites make pilgrimages to Karbala, where on Ashura (the day of Hussein’s death), many ritually inflict pain on themselves — a sign of solidarity with Hussein. In this context, death — even mass death — is seen as a sacred sacrifice, a purification before the emergence of a better world with the Mahdi’s return. Hence, there is a real chance that a nuclear conflict might not be perceived as the end, but as the beginning of a new spiritual era.
The Western concept of nuclear deterrence is based on the assumption that each actor behaves rationally, avoiding mutual destruction. But what if we are dealing with an irrational actor — one for whom “victory” includes death as a precondition for spiritual triumph? This is what makes Iran — not North Korea, not Pakistan, not even Russia — a unique threat. Because this is not about geopolitics; it is about faith, where even the missile launch button may be sanctified by a religious mission.
Of course, not everyone in Iran shares such radical views. There are pragmatic, rational forces in the political environment (for example, parts of the elite associated with former President Hassan Rouhani, who advocated for improved relations with the West and compliance with the nuclear deal). However, the IRGC is an autonomous “state within a state” with its own interests, values, and human resources. The key question is not who formally controls nuclear weapons, but who is prepared to use them — believing they are part of a divine plan.
Within Mahdist ideology, Iran does not seek traditional alliances in the classic sense. Its true partners are only those who share its vision of the world as a battlefield between “harbingers of justice” and the “forces of darkness” — the so-called “Axis of Resistance.” All other states are, in Tehran’s eyes, temporary tools — tactical resources useful only as long as they don’t interfere with the main objective: preparing for the return of the “Imam of the Age.”
Accordingly, confrontation with the U.S. (“the Great Satan”) and Israel (“the Little Satan”) is not merely a foreign policy issue or regional rivalry — it is part of an eschatological mission. Spiritual leaders of the IRGC in their sermons cite hadiths stating that the Mahdi’s return is only possible after the destruction of the Jewish state. In this narrative, Israel is not seen as a political adversary but as a metaphysical obstacle blocking the path to sacred renewal. The U.S., in turn, is the main power ensuring Israel’s security — and thus must be eliminated as well.
Therefore, those who see Iran as a potential geopolitical partner in local conflicts — in Europe or the Caucasus, for example — must understand: for the Islamic Republic, there are no obligations except those dictated by religious purpose. No political expediency can outweigh the deep belief in the necessity of accelerating the Imam’s return.
Special attention in IRGC ideology is paid to the “end times” timeline, which, according to Shiite interpretations, must be preceded by a great world war. In modern IRGC clerical sermons, the current standoff between Russia and the West — particularly the war in Ukraine — is increasingly framed as one of the stages of this global conflict. At the same time, this war is not viewed by them as “holy” or “theirs,” but rather as a necessary geopolitical cataclysm paving the way for the next and real battle — the confrontation of Shiites with “Yahuds” (Jews). This final war, in their apocalyptic logic, is the last phase before the return of the “Master of Time” — Imam MahdiS.
An additional complicating factor is the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih — the concept of absolute rule by the Supreme Islamic Jurist (Ayatollah), on which the IRGC is based. After Israel eliminated several senior IRGC officials, the absolute authority of the Ayatollah was essentially solidified. The final word rests with the Supreme Leader. But will Ali Khamenei’s decision-making be guided by pragmatism — or by religious belief that Iran itself must set the clock ticking toward the end of times, paving the way for the Mahdi?
This very question explains why the West is so determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Because it is not just a weapon in the hands of another state. It is a weapon that may fall under the control of radicals shaped by Mahdist ideology. It is the key to the apocalypse — in the hands of those who see in it not catastrophe, but hope.
No posts found!
© 2025 ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED
