Iranian Religious Strategy in the Face of U.S. Threats
- Mickey Segall
- Jun 20
- 7 min read
DATE: June 20, 2025
Executive Summary
Amid increasing U.S. threats—particularly statements suggesting potential assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—Iran's clerical establishment has launched an unprecedented, multi-institutional religious counteroffensive. Senior religious institutions in Qom, along with affiliated responses from Iraq's Najaf seminary, have issued coordinated declarations portraying such threats not merely as acts of political aggression, but as assaults on the entirety of the global Islamic community.
This rhetorical escalation reflects a calculated Iranian strategy: to deter American military involvement by transforming a political confrontation into a sacred religious battle. The campaign frames Ayatollah Khamenei as a divine and transnational religious authority, making any attack on him tantamount to an attack on Islam itself.
At the same time, Iran's Shiite allies—including Hezbollah and Iraq-based militant factions—have reinforced this message with explicit threats of regional retaliation, should the U.S. or Israel act militarily against Khamenei. This alignment of religious and paramilitary messaging constitutes a layered deterrence effort aimed squarely at U.S. strategic calculations.
Key Threats to U.S. Interests
Mobilization of transnational Shiite communities (especially in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia) in defense of Khamenei's religious status.
Escalation by Iran-backed militias (e.g., Harakat al-Nujaba, Kataib Hezbollah) targeting U.S. forces, diplomats, and infrastructure.
Theological framing of the crisis as a divine war, invoking jihad and martyrdom in religious discourse.
Signals of potential Lebanese Hezbollah involvement if U.S. actions escalate.
Strategic invocation of pan-Islamic grievance to delegitimize U.S. actions and build international pressure.
Iranian and Iraqi Clerical Responses to U.S. Threats
The Critical Role of Religious Seminaries in Shiite Islam
Religious seminaries (hawzas) in Qom and Najaf form the spiritual, ideological, and institutional backbone of global Shiite authority. They not only train clerics and issue religious rulings (fatwas), but also guide the political consciousness of millions of Shiite believers across the Middle East. Their unified statements carry immense weight and can catalyze collective action across state borders.
The recent coordinated messaging marks a significant moment where hawza networks are being used to transform a perceived political threat into a global religious mobilization.
Coordinated Iranian Clerical Responses
Joint Statement by Qom Seminary Institutions
A statement from senior clerics and seminary institutions in Qom described Khamenei as:
“A vital pillar not only for Shia Islam but for the entire Muslim ummah.”
The statement referred to U.S. rhetoric as an "ignorant assault" and warned:
“It has aroused the anger of millions of oppressed masses of the world, and now world Muslims are ready for great jihad against these enemies of humanity.”
They invoked Qur'an Al-Anfal:30:
“And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.”
The clerics also quoted:
“They seek to put out the light of Allah with their words, but Allah will complete His light, even if the unbelievers detest it.”
The statement further proclaimed:
“Free people of the world, followers of monotheistic religions, free Muslims, nations and governments: the American president has removed the mask from his face while supporting the child-killing Zionist regime.”
And emphasized:
“Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is not merely Iran’s national leader, but the religious authority for millions of followers around the world. We declare our readiness to sacrifice our lives in defense of this divinely guided figure… such threats are an attack on the very foundations of religion and the institution of religious leadership.”
Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi
Makarem Shirazi invoked historical precedent—the assassination attempt on the Prophet Muhammad during the Hijra—and called for a theological response grounded in faith:
“No righteous and free Muslim can tolerate this threat… Victory belongs not to material might, but to faith.”
He issued a three-point directive:
Universal condemnation by Muslims.
Military preparedness and surprise capabilities.
Intensive prayer and supplication.
He added:
“This false and invalid regime (Israel) and its wretched leaders, in ultimate weakness and after being shaken by the achievements of the warriors and soldiers of Islam, are imagining that reliance on the material and vain power of America and some European governments, along with the complicity of regional governments, will allow them to escape the current situation in the occupied territories.”
Grand Ayatollah Nouri Hamedani
Hamedani took the most direct theological position:
“Any assault on the leadership of the Islamic nation is an assault on the foundation of Islam and the life of all Muslims.”
He described the American threats as:
“Emerging not from power, but from desperation and fear.”
He warned of:
“A harsh and crushing reaction from both Iran and the global free peoples.”
And invoked Qur'anic promises of divine assistance:
“The American president has nothing in his black record except murder, plunder and killing, and has continuously supported the crimes of the bloodthirsty Zionist regime.”
Ayatollah Alireza Arafi (Director of Seminaries)
Arafi offered the most comprehensive institutional framing:
“Defense of Shia religious authority is a definitive and conclusive religious duty for all Muslims worldwide.”
He called the threats:
“Among the ugliest phenomena throughout centuries—unprecedented, shameful, and angering to all members of the Iranian and Islamic nation.”
And warned:
“They may create terrible volcanoes… and result in unpredictable and unimaginable consequences.”
He demanded:
“Formal diplomatic action and institutional condemnation from global Muslim bodies.”
Women's Seminary Response
The women's seminaries framed their statement around Zeinabi's insight, invoking the revered Shia figure Lady Zeinab as a symbol of courage and religious defiance:
“Women religious students stand heart and soul in defending religious authority alongside their male counterparts.”
They called U.S. policy "state terrorism" and warned:
“If necessary, we will establish another Ashura.”
They added:
“The seminary is the stronghold of defending guardianship, and sister students, alongside their brothers… will respond to these poisonous threats with the weapons of logic, insight and resistance, and if necessary, we will establish another Ashura… We explicitly declare that this threat is a threat to all of Iran, and a nation that has offered more than three hundred thousand martyrs to Islam has never been and will never be afraid of the shadow of threat.”
Iraqi Clerical Response: Sistani and Najaf
In contrast to Qom's escalatory rhetoric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, based in Najaf, adopted a more cautious and legalistic stance, conveyed via Iranian state broadcaster IRIB:
“Such a criminal act… portends dire consequences for the entire region, potentially spiraling completely out of control and leading to widespread chaos that would exacerbate the suffering of its people and harm everyone's interests to the greatest possible extent.”
Sistani urged:
“Muslim-majority countries and the international community must stop this unjust war and find a just and peaceful solution in accordance with international law.”
Najaf students released a statement echoing warning tones:
“Trump has brazenly resorted to threatening to assassinate Ayatollah Khamenei, an action that is not only a threat against a political leader, but an insult to a religious authority and symbol of unity and resistance in the Islamic world… Our message to the Trump administration is that the position of religious authority is a red line, and any hand that extends toward it will only face a hand that will cut it off.”
Militant and Proxy Responses
Harakat al-Nujaba (Akram al-Kaabi)
On June 19, al-Kaabi stated:
“Any harm to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei will trigger attacks on U.S. military, diplomatic, and civilian targets across the region. No soldier or diplomat will be safe… This is not just a threat—it’s a generational confrontation. All disbelief has stood against Islam.”
Kataib Hezbollah (Abu Ali al-Askari)
On June 18, he warned:
“The United States will face unprecedented destruction if it intervenes militarily against Iran… Trump is an idiot, and his remarks—especially during the sacred mourning month for Imam Hussein—will have serious consequences.”
He claimed:
“Iran has sufficient missile stockpiles to strike Israel for over a year and can expand its campaign to include all U.S. interests in the region.”
He reassured allies:
“American threats against Iraq are lies. They will not deter the resistance from supporting the righteous front.”
Hezbollah (Lebanon)
In a June 19 statement, Hezbollah warned:
“Threats to assassinate Ayatollah Khamenei are foolish and reckless… Even mentioning such an act is deeply offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims and supporters of the resistance.”
They declared:
“Faith and resistance will ultimately prevail… The millions of free people loyal to Khamenei cannot be defeated, even if all the world’s enemies unite against them.”
They implied that:
If the United States joins the war, Hezbollah may escalate militarily, opening the door to broader regional conflict.
Religious War as Strategic Deterrence
The coordinated messaging effort reveals a clear Iranian strategy: to deter U.S. involvement by reframing threats to the Supreme Leader as threats to Islam itself. By invoking concepts of jihad, martyrdom, divine defense, and religious unity, Iran seeks to:
Mobilize its domestic population.
Galvanize Shiite populations in the Gulf.
Justify proxy and militia attacks on U.S. assets.
Raise the political and moral costs of American intervention.
The contrast with Sistani's more restrained and legalistic message highlights the divergent theological and political doctrines between Najaf and Qom. While Iran's religious establishment positions itself as the militant vanguard of global Shia Islam, Najaf's quietism resists the politicization of religious authority.
The coordinated nature of these statements across multiple institutions and national boundaries demonstrates the unified response of Shia religious authority to what they perceive as unprecedented threats. The rhetoric employed transforms political tensions into matters of fundamental religious principle, invoking concepts of jihad, martyrdom, and divine protection that resonate deeply within the Shia theological tradition.
The involvement of both Iranian and Iraqi religious authorities, particularly the respected figure of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, indicates that the response extends beyond national politics and engages broader regional religious networks. The specific invocation of historical religious narratives—particularly references to early Islamic history and Shia martyrdom traditions—suggests an attempt to mobilize religious sentiment across sectarian and national lines.
The Iranian clerical establishment invokes jihad, martyrdom, and divine legitimacy to frame any attack on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei as an assault on the global Islamic community. This is not merely a rhetorical flourish but a strategic maneuver intended to deter U.S. military involvement and consolidate regional Shia support. Senior clerics like Grand Ayatollahs Makarem Shirazi and Nouri Hamedani explicitly seek to rally Shia populations not only in Iran and Iraq, but also in Gulf states such as Bahrain—where Shia constitute 65–75% of the population—and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, home to a sizable Shia minority, many of whom maintain deep loyalty to the clerical leadership in Qom and Najaf.
These coordinated statements, therefore, reveal an emerging Iranian strategy to escalate pressure on U.S. interests in light of perceived American-Israeli alignment in the region. By framing geopolitical confrontation as a religious war and portraying threats against Khamenei as an assault on Islamic unity, Iran signals a transnational Shia response that transcends state borders. This rhetoric could spark Shia unrest in Bahrain and Eastern Saudi Arabia—potentially triggering protests, paramilitary mobilization, or asymmetric attacks targeting U.S. and Israeli assets.
The clerics' invocation of "great jihad" and warnings of "unpredictable consequences" reflect not just emotional escalation, but a calculated strategic posture. It represents an effort to raise the cost of U.S. engagement and dissuade intervention by signaling that any escalation could ignite a multi-theater regional confrontation, unbound by traditional state actors or battlefield geography.
.
Comments