There is a specific kind of tension that exists when the ink on a man’s skin meets the levers of the most powerful military apparatus in human history. For Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, that tension is written in the imagery of the Crusades. It’s not merely a hobby or a penchant for medieval aesthetics. it is a worldview etched into his identity, surfacing during his 2025 confirmation hearings and codified in his 2020 book, American Crusade. In the final chapter, Hegseth doesn’t just analyze history—he calls to Make the Crusade Great Again
.
To the casual observer, this might look like the eccentricity of a history buff. But in the windowless corridors of the Pentagon, a personality quirk becomes a policy framework. When the person overseeing the United States’ nuclear triad and global troop deployments views modern conflict through the lens of 11th-century religious warfare, the distinction between “national security” and “holy war” begins to blur. This represents no longer a debate about historical interpretation; it is a matter of strategic risk, particularly as the U.S. Navigates the volatile currents of the current war in Iran.
The Fallacy of the Defensive Crusade
Hegseth frames the Crusades as a defensive necessity, arguing that Christianity was forced to react to avoid being overrun by Islam. It is a clean, binary narrative: a civilization under siege fighting for its survival. However, this interpretation is a radical simplification that strips away the political, economic, and territorial greed that fueled the medieval campaigns. The Crusades were less a unified defensive wall and more a chaotic series of land grabs, power plays, and religious fervors that often targeted fellow Christians as much as they did Muslims.
Matthew Gabriele, a professor of medieval history, notes that this sanitized version of history ignores the brutality and the complex geopolitical motivations of the era. By casting the Crusades as a righteous defense, Hegseth isn’t just rewriting the past; he is creating a moral justification for modern aggression. When we apply this “defensive” logic to the current conflict in Iran, we risk transforming a geopolitical struggle over regional hegemony and nuclear proliferation into a cosmic battle between faiths.
“The danger of framing modern conflicts in the language of the Crusades is that it removes the possibility of diplomacy. If you are fighting a ‘Holy War,’ your opponent is no longer a political actor with interests to be negotiated—they become an existential evil to be eradicated.” Dr. Karen Armstrong, historian and author of A History of God
This ideological framing is particularly dangerous given the symbols Hegseth admires. Many icons associated with the Crusades have been co-opted by modern extremist groups, appearing in the Anti-Defamation League’s database of hate symbols. When the Secretary of Defense signals an affinity for these markers, he isn’t just speaking to a domestic base; he is broadcasting a signal to the world that the U.S. Is operating on a theological, rather than a diplomatic, mandate.
Strategic Blind Spots in the Iranian Theater
The most immediate casualty of a “Crusader” mindset is strategic nuance. In the current war in Iran, the U.S. Goal is ostensibly the containment of nuclear ambitions and the dismantling of proxy networks. These are political and military objectives. However, if the leadership views the conflict as a continuation of a medieval struggle, the tactical approach shifts. We move from “surgical strikes” and “strategic deterrence” to a narrative of “liberation” and “conquest.”
This shift plays directly into the hands of the Iranian regime. For decades, Tehran has utilized the narrative of the “West as the Great Satan” to unify a fractured domestic population. By adopting the rhetoric and imagery of the Crusades, the Pentagon provides the Iranian leadership with the ultimate propaganda gift: proof that the U.S. Is not interested in stability or human rights, but in a religious war against Islam. This doesn’t weaken the regime; it welds the Iranian people to it in a perceived struggle for cultural and religious survival.
This is the “Clash of Civilizations” trap, a theory popularized by Samuel Huntington that suggests cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. Although Huntington viewed this as an observation, Hegseth appears to be treating it as a playbook. The risk is that by treating the war in Iran as a crusade, the U.S. May inadvertently ignite a broader regional conflagration that transcends borders and targets civilians based on faith rather than affiliation.
The Friction Between Ideology and the Brass
Inside the Pentagon, the “professional” military—the generals and admirals who rely on the Council on Foreign Relations’ style of calculated risk assessment—likely views this ideological tilt with profound alarm. The U.S. Military operates on the principle of “limited objectives.” A crusade, by definition, has an absolute objective: the total victory of the faith.
When a Secretary of Defense views the world in binaries of “believer” and “infidel,” the traditional chain of command faces a crisis of intent. Are orders being issued based on intelligence reports, or are they based on a desire to fulfill a perceived historical destiny? This creates a dangerous gap in communication where the “brass” may be planning for a ceasefire while the civilian leadership is planning for a conversion.
“When religious zeal replaces strategic patience in the Department of Defense, the result is almost always an overestimation of one’s own power and an underestimation of the enemy’s resolve.” General (Ret.) James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense
The historical precedent for this is grim. The original Crusades ended not in a lasting peace, but in centuries of mutual distrust and a legacy of violence that still informs the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. By attempting to “Make the Crusade Great Again,” Hegseth is not reviving a golden age of chivalry; he is reviving a blueprint for perpetual war.
The question we have to question is whether the Pentagon is still a department of defense, or if it has become a department of holy war. If the map of the world is being drawn with medieval ink, we aren’t moving toward a more secure future—we are simply marching back into a dark age. Is the pursuit of a “righteous” war worth the risk of an endless one?
Do you think a leader’s personal beliefs should be separate from their strategic decisions, or is it impossible to decouple the two? Let us understand in the comments.
