The False Theology of Empire:
Why Religious Justifications for U.S. Policy Toward Israel Violate the Constitution and .... Common Sense
In the latest installment of Tucker Carlson's interview series, Senator Ted Cruz reaffirmed a deeply entrenched yet fundamentally flawed belief that has gripped large portions of the American political establishment: that the United States has a divine obligation to support the State of Israel. Cruz, like many others in the neoconservative and evangelical coalition, presents this as a moral imperative, one derived—explicitly or implicitly—from the Old Testament and certain interpretations of prophecy.
But this claim is not only theologically dubious; it is politically dangerous and constitutionally suspect. It distorts the First Amendment, misrepresents Christian theology, and distracts from urgent domestic crises while dragging the United States further into endless entanglements underpinned by false pretenses. And at a moment when America itself is dissolving. In real time. It’s dissolving—under the weight of ideological insurgency, internal sabotage, and constitutional erosion—the insensitivity of this foreign policy obsession borders on suicidal.
Misquoting the Divine: The Myth of a Biblical Mandate
The foundational scripture invoked in these arguments is Genesis 12:3: "I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you," spoken to Abraham. Yet it requires a leap—intellectually dishonest and theologically shallow—to transpose that verse onto a modern nation-state created in 1948 through a mixture of Zionist nationalism, British colonial diplomacy, and Western guilt post-Holocaust.
Biblically speaking, "Israel" was not a fixed territory with defined borders or a standing army. It was a people aligned with the covenant of God. In the New Testament, Paul redefines Israel altogether, stating in Galatians 3:7 that, "those who have faith are children of Abraham." The notion that supporting a modern, secular (and in some ways religious-nationalist) state equates to aligning with God's chosen people is not just erroneous—it is a weaponized reading of scripture used to justify foreign interventionism.
The Modern State of Israel Is Not The Same As The Biblical Israel
To question U.S. aid or allegiance to Israel is not to deny Jewish people their dignity or safety. It is to reject the idea that a geopolitical entity founded in the mid-20th century and governed today with laws that privilege one religious-ethnic identity over others is beyond critique. Israel is not a theocracy in name, but its “Law of Return”, its control over marriage laws, and its subsidizing of Orthodox Judaism point to a deeply religious character.
American politicians, however, routinely couch support for Israel in explicitly theological terms. They declare it a Christian duty, a moral obligation sanctioned by God. Such rhetoric is not only a constitutional violation—running afoul of the Establishment Clause—but a form of soft theocracy.
📜 First Amendment Violated by Proxy: When Foreign Policy Becomes Theocracy
The First Amendment begins with this unequivocal line:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
This foundational clause means that Congress cannot write laws or shape foreign policy based on religious obligations or theological doctrine. Yet that is precisely what many Israel-centered policies become when their advocates cite biblical prophecy or divine mandate as justification.
This isn’t hypothetical. Several U.S. laws and resolutions—though outwardly strategic—have been influenced, propelled, or justified by religious interest groups and theological rhetoric:
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995: This law mandated the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. While framed in diplomatic terms, its strongest support came from evangelical Christian Zionist groups who viewed the move as fulfilling prophecy and hastening the Second Coming of Christ.
The Taylor Force Act (2018): This law cut funding to the Palestinian Authority until it ceases payments to families of terrorists. While the language of the bill was secular, it was fervently pushed by groups like Christians United for Israel (CUFI), who publicly declared it a moral and biblical obligation.
Anti-BDS Legislation: Across the federal and state levels, laws have been passed penalizing companies or individuals who boycott Israeli goods. While defended as economic policy, these bills have been heavily championed by religiously affiliated organizations that equate criticism of Israel with spiritual betrayal or antisemitism rooted in defiance of God’s plan.
When public officials cite God’s promise to Abraham as the moral backbone of these policies—as Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, Tom Cotton, and others have done—they cross the boundary between personal belief and constitutional duty.
This is not merely support for an ally; it is religiously inspired governance. Imagine if similar laws were passed to fund a Christian monarchy or to defend an Islamic caliphate based on Quranic texts. The backlash would be swift and unanimous. Yet when it comes to Israel, the line between statecraft and scripture disappears.
This air of what I’ll refer to as a kind of moral hazard or entrapment based on lingering vestiges of what Nazis did by primarily targeting Jews with what has been referred to as a cross section of Christians justifying jewish persecution and death for the Crucifixion. The reason this doesn’t wash is that no true Christian would resort to embracing revenge as this is not at all part of the Christian ethos.
“Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.” From Luke 6:28 reflects Jesus’ radical teaching on non-retaliation, forgiveness, and love for enemies. This command is not nationalistic or tribal—it is personal and spiritual. It doesn’t imply supporting a particular nation-state or retaliating on behalf of a group. Instead, it challenges the follower of Christ to respond to hostility with grace, even when cursed or wronged. Unfortunately this admonition is rejected by members of other religions which puts the Christian believer between a rock and hard place.
The Eternal Boogeyman Syndrome
Senator Cruz, in his conversation with Carlson, invoked Iran with characteristic fervor, claiming they must be stopped at all costs. The justification, again, was apocalyptic: Iran, we are told, wants to wipe Israel off the map. This phrase, widely circulated since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2005 speech, is a mistranslation. What was actually said—"the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"—was ideological, not militaristic.
Still, it fuels bipartisan hysteria. When Tucker pressed Cruz for basic facts—like Iran’s ethnic composition—Cruz stumbled. This was Carlson’s broader point: the people making decisions about war rarely understand the complexity of the nations they want to bomb.
And this is not new. America has been dragged into war after war—Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria—under false or oversimplified pretenses:
The Gulf of Tonkin incident (1964): Fabricated.
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (2003): False.
Libyan humanitarian bombing (2011): Catastrophic.
Syrian chemical weapons narratives: Highly disputed.
Each time, the press fell in line. Each time, the people paid. Each time, the architects of war remained untouched.
What This Costs Us: The Death by a Thousand Cuts
The late David Horowitz long warned that the greatest threat to America is internal: the rise of the radical left, communist color revolutions disguised as social justice, and a systematic effort to dismantle the country from within. Today, that warning has become prophecy. Cities burn under the guise of protest. Streets are blocked by mobs demanding ideological submission. Government agencies collude with tech giants to suppress dissent. Our sovereignty isn’t being nuked—it’s being dissolved, not in one explosion but by a thousand legal, cultural, and institutional cuts.
While the Trump administration has taken meaningful steps toward reasserting border control and curbing some of the globalist momentum, the political infrastructure remains fragile and under siege. This isn't a nation with wide open borders anymore—but it is one with a porous institutional core, vulnerable to ideological erosion from within.
And yet, our political class fixates on Iran and Israel as if we're not bleeding to death here at home. Worse still, they flirt with bombing Iranian nuclear sites without addressing the obvious: if Iran truly wanted a nuclear weapon, it could likely acquire one indirectly through its strategic partnerships—with China, for instance, or even through proxy technology transfers from North Korea. Destroying enrichment plants would be little more than theater. It would delay, not deter. It would provoke, not pacify.
Ron Paul’s Warning: Blowback
Former Congressman Ron Paul famously warned on the House floor that U.S. foreign policy driven by interventionism and aggression would inevitably lead to blowback—unintended consequences born of empire-building arrogance. Paul's point was prophetic: destabilizing the Middle East, installing puppet regimes, and conducting endless preemptive strikes would only make America less safe and more hated. And Israel is the one that has provoked this intial attack on Iran or so we’ve been told. Days leading up to the attack we saw the old war hawk himself. Mike Pompeo. Nothing good ever seems to happen when that guy shows up anywhere and what the hell was he doing in the Middle East anyway ?
Blowback is not a theoretical risk—it is a documented pattern. The 9/11 attacks were, in part, a response to America's meddling in Muslim lands. Each drone strike and covert operation seeds the next generation of hostility. And yet Cruz and company ignore this hard-earned lesson in favor of theological fantasy. The Irony is that Tucker Carlson supported the Iraq War while Cruz opposed it. The worm has turned.
Let Israel Be Israel—Let America Survive
This is not about abandoning Israel or any other ally. It is about abandoning the suicidal theology and policies that turns every foreign conflict into a crusade. It is about refusing to let our nation die by distraction. And make no mistake this is very much a distraction.
The modern State of Israel, for all its right to exist, is not above critique. Nor is it above the Constitution of the United States. When American lawmakers use religious texts to justify public policy, they tread not only on secular ground—but dangerous ground. The question isn’t whether Israel should be defended. The question is whether we—as a people struggling under historic strain—can afford to keep sacrificing truth, money, and lives for a culture and ideology most of us don’t even share.
And lets be nakedly honest. Israel has really just become a vassal state for American military interests.