In the weeks since the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, Pete Hegseth has been doing something that no modern Defense Secretary has done quite so openly: framing America's war in explicitly religious terms.

He has described the conflict as a confrontation between "Judeo-Christian civilization" and forces that would destroy it. He has invoked Scripture in press briefings. He wore a cross prominently at his Senate confirmation hearings and has given speeches at Christian nationalist events describing the military as a force that should unapologetically serve "God and country" — in that order.

For his supporters, this is refreshing honesty from a man who believes what he says. For his critics — including current and former military officers, constitutional scholars, and some of America's closest Muslim-majority allies — it is something far more dangerous: a Defense Secretary who has wrapped a complex geopolitical conflict in religious language that could inflame the entire Middle East and undermine the professional military's foundational commitment to serving all Americans regardless of faith.

The Associated Press reported Monday that Hegseth's Christian rhetoric is drawing "renewed scrutiny" as the Iran war continues. Here is what that scrutiny is actually about — and why it matters.

What Hegseth Has Actually Said

The record is not ambiguous.

At a 2022 event organized by the Christian nationalist group Turning Point USA, Hegseth said: "We need to understand that we're in a spiritual war. And the military needs to understand that." He called for the military to return to its "Christian roots" and described secular culture as an existential threat to the armed forces.

In January 2025, during his confirmation hearings, Hegseth wore a cross necklace and referenced his Christian faith when asked about his qualifications. He said he believed "Christian warriors" had built America's military might and should continue to lead it.

After the Iran strikes began in late February 2026, Hegseth gave a press conference in which he described the mission in terms that alarmed Middle East policy experts. He invoked "the long struggle of Western civilization" and referred to Iranian theocracy as "the enemy of all that is good and holy." Several defense analysts noted the formulation was nearly identical to language used by Iranian clerics to describe America.

He has also drawn scrutiny for statements about women in the military, diversity programs, and the role of chaplains — all framed through a lens of what he calls "warrior Christianity."

Why the Military Has Rules About This

The U.S. military has long-standing, detailed regulations governing religious expression by service members and commanders. They exist for a reason.

Under Department of Defense Directive 1300.17 and the related instruction 1300.17-I, commanders are prohibited from using their position to promote personal religious beliefs. The regulations require that commanders "accommodate the religious practices of Service members" of all faiths and explicitly prohibit actions that could create an impression of official military endorsement of any religion.

The rules trace back to court cases and historical lessons. During World War I and II, the U.S. military fought alongside soldiers of every conceivable faith — Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and none at all. The professional military tradition holds that a soldier's religion is between them and their conscience; their duty is to the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution explicitly bars "religious tests" for federal office. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits government from endorsing or promoting religion. Courts have consistently held that the military is not exempt from these requirements, though they give commanders more latitude than civilian agencies.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), which litigates cases of religious coercion in the armed forces, has documented hundreds of complaints from service members who say they feel pressured to conform to Christian religious expression by superior officers. The organization says complaints have increased significantly since Hegseth took office.

The Strategic Problem

Beyond constitutional concerns, military strategists have flagged a practical problem with Hegseth's rhetoric: it hands Iran a propaganda win.

Iran's government has spent decades trying to frame every U.S. action in the Middle East as a "Crusade" — a term with specific and emotionally charged meaning across the Arab and Muslim world. When Hegseth uses language about "Judeo-Christian civilization" defending itself from Iran, he is, intentionally or not, validating that framing.

The U.S. military currently operates in, with, or adjacent to approximately 45 countries with majority Muslim populations. It relies on basing rights, intelligence cooperation, and political goodwill from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and others. Qatar hosts the largest U.S. air base in the Middle East — Al Udeid — from which operations against Iran have been coordinated. Qatar is 67% Muslim.

General (ret.) David Petraeus, who commanded forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, has consistently argued that winning counterterrorism and regional wars requires "being seen as a force for the population, not against it." Framing the conflict in Christian-versus-Muslim terms works directly against that goal.

The UAE's ambassador to Washington, in a private letter that was later reported by Politico, reportedly expressed "concern" about rhetoric from the Pentagon that could complicate the Abraham Accords framework — the regional normalization agreements that form a cornerstone of current U.S. Middle East policy.

The Supporters' Case

Hegseth has significant defenders, and their argument deserves a fair hearing.

The core claim is this: the United States has long pretended its wars are purely strategic or humanitarian when they have often reflected deeper cultural and civilizational stakes. Being honest about those stakes — including the role of religion and values — is not weakness; it is clarity.

Proponents of this view point out that Iran's government is explicitly theocratic. Its constitution mandates Islamic governance. Its Supreme Leader holds religious authority above the president. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) explicitly frames its mission in religious terms. Refusing to acknowledge the religious dimension of the conflict, they argue, is a form of willful blindness.

Hegseth's defenders also argue that the military has, in practice, always been dominated by religiously conservative Christians, particularly in the officer corps, and that secular diversity programs imposed over the last 20 years have created morale problems without improving combat effectiveness.

A 2023 Pew Research survey found that 73% of active-duty U.S. military personnel identified as Christian — compared to 63% of the general American adult population. Among officers, the number was higher. In this reading, Hegseth is not imposing his faith; he is speaking for the existing culture of the institution.

The Distinction That Matters

The constitutional and strategic debates largely hinge on a single distinction: the difference between a Defense Secretary who personally holds Christian beliefs (unambiguously legal and common throughout history) versus one who uses the official apparatus of the Pentagon to promote Christianity as the basis for military service and mission (legally and strategically problematic).

The evidence suggests Hegseth has, at minimum, repeatedly blurred that line.

Public statements from his office, including press releases and prepared remarks, have used language like "our Judeo-Christian heritage" and "the values that made our military great." Internal Pentagon communications reviewed by several media outlets show chaplain programs have been quietly restructured to give evangelical Christian organizations greater access to troops.

Meanwhile, the MRFF reports that complaints from non-Christian service members — including Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and non-religious personnel — have spiked 40% since January 2025.

Whether this constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion, or merely a political style that critics find objectionable, is now being tested in several pending federal lawsuits.

Historical Parallel: The Crusade Problem

There is a reason the State Department and Pentagon have, since 2001, been exquisitely careful about religious language in the context of Middle East conflicts.

On September 16, 2001, President George W. Bush — himself a devout Christian — used the word "crusade" to describe the coming war on terror. He used it once, informally, in a Rose Garden press gaggle. The diplomatic fallout was immediate and severe. U.S. allies in the Arab world issued formal protests. Al-Qaeda used the clip in recruiting videos for years afterward.

Bush immediately walked it back and never used the term again. The State Department issued clarifications. The lesson was learned painfully: religious language in the context of Middle Eastern conflict is not just a rhetorical choice. It is a strategic variable with measurable consequences.

Twenty-five years later, a Defense Secretary is not just using such language once in a slip — he is building an institutional framework around it.

What Happens Next

The AP's report notes the scrutiny is coming from multiple directions simultaneously. Civil liberties groups are filing legal challenges. Former senior military officials — including retired generals and admirals — have signed open letters expressing concern. Several Senate Armed Services Committee members have requested Pentagon testimony on the religious expression policies.

Within the military itself, the picture is mixed. Some service members have told reporters they appreciate a Defense Secretary who shares their faith openly. Others — particularly those from minority religious backgrounds or no religion at all — describe feeling increasingly unwelcome in an institution they signed up to serve.

The Iran war itself complicates the picture. With active combat operations ongoing, direct public criticism of the Defense Secretary from within the uniformed military is constrained by law and tradition. Dissent, if it exists, will be quieter and slower to surface.

The larger question — whether a democracy can wage a war of choice in the Middle East while its chief military officer frames it in religious terms — is now live, with no settled answer.

The Bottom Line

What is certain: Pete Hegseth has used the platform of the Defense Secretary to articulate a Christian-nationalist worldview with a consistency and explicitness that has no modern precedent at that level of government. Whether that represents refreshing conviction or a dangerous mixing of faith and military force depends largely on where you start. What is not a matter of opinion is that the language has already produced measurable diplomatic friction with Muslim-majority allies and is generating formal legal challenges from service members. In a war that depends on Arab cooperation for basing, intelligence, and legitimacy, that is a strategic cost — whatever one thinks of the theology.