Before You Call It God’s Plan — Remember 1979

History shows the same tactic has been used for decades—from Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan to today’s rhetoric about Iran and biblical prophecy.

by Julie Telgenhoff

A recent report has circulated widely online after a watchdog complaint alleged that U.S. troops were told their potential role in conflict with Iran was “part of God’s divine plan.” According to the account, a commander reportedly referenced passages from the Book of Revelation and described the conflict in apocalyptic terms, telling soldiers that events unfolding in Iran could signal Armageddon and the return of Jesus Christ. The claims were highlighted in a report by The Guardian, citing concerns raised by a non-commissioned officer who said troops were encouraged to see the conflict not simply as geopolitical policy, but as prophecy unfolding.

Whether the allegation ultimately proves accurate or exaggerated, the deeper issue it raises is not new. Throughout history, political leaders and military institutions have often wrapped wars in religious language. When framed as divine destiny rather than policy, war becomes morally simplified. Instead of a strategic decision made by governments, it becomes a sacred duty.

That rhetorical strategy has appeared repeatedly across cultures and religions.

Source: Wikipedia

One of the clearest examples emerged during the Cold War. In 1979, the United States launched Operation Cyclone, a covert CIA program that funded and armed Afghan resistance fighters battling Soviet influence in Afghanistan. The program would run for more than a decade and become one of the largest covert operations in CIA history.

During that period, U.S. officials openly appealed to religious motivation to strengthen the Afghan resistance. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski famously visited fighters near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and told them their struggle was righteous, declaring that “God is on your side.” The message framed the war not only as a geopolitical struggle against Soviet communism, but as a sacred fight aligned with divine will.

In other words, the same pattern that now appears controversial in American Christian rhetoric was used decades earlier by U.S. officials appealing to Islamic fighters.

Different religion. Same tactic.

Operation Cyclone itself illustrates the scale of the strategy. What began as modest funding in 1979 grew into hundreds of millions of dollars annually by the late 1980s. Weapons, training, and intelligence flowed to Afghan fighters through Pakistan, many of whom belonged to strongly ideological militant groups favored by regional power brokers. Religion provided a powerful unifying narrative. Fighting the Soviets was framed not only as a political struggle but as a religious obligation.

Looking back, it becomes difficult to argue that those messages were genuine expressions of prophecy or divine revelation. They were tools of persuasion designed to mobilize people to fight.

This historical pattern complicates modern claims that current geopolitical events represent biblical prophecy unfolding in real time. When leaders tell soldiers that war fulfills divine destiny, the message may resonate deeply with believers—but history shows that such language has often served strategic purposes.

ALSO SEE:  (VIDEO) The War Plan -- According to (Ret.) U.S. General Wesley Clark

Religion is one of the most powerful motivators available to political authority. It can create cohesion among soldiers, justify sacrifice, and transform ordinary conflict into moral crusade. When violence is framed as sanctioned by God, resistance becomes difficult. Doubt can feel like disobedience not only to government, but to faith itself.

Because of that power, religious rhetoric has long been used to rally armies—from medieval crusades to modern ideological conflicts.

The controversy surrounding the alleged remarks about Iran may therefore be less surprising than it first appears. If the claims are accurate, they would not represent a new phenomenon, but rather the continuation of a familiar strategy: invoking faith to give war a sacred narrative.

History suggests that whenever governments speak the language of prophecy, it is worth asking whether the message comes from heaven—or from the machinery of politics.