The United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes on Feb. 28 targeting Iranian military and government sites. The attacks, which killed senior officials including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, prompted immediate retaliation from Iran in the form of missile and drone strikes on U.S. bases and allied countries across the Middle East.

The conflict has since widened in both scope and consequence, with widespread famine, displacement and casualties spreading throughout the region. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, between 600,000 and one million Iranian households are now temporarily displaced as a result of the ongoing conflict. 

Scrutiny from Western nations has increased in recent weeks as global economic markets begin to feel the squeeze of rising oil and gas prices. In April, the United States imposed a naval blockade on Iran in the Strait of Hormuz following failed negotiations, intercepting vessels and further escalating tensions in one of the world’s most critical shipping routes. 

Recent reporting indicates that U.S. military involvement continues to deepen with increased naval presence and threats of further escalation, while diplomatic efforts involving mediators such as Pakistan attempt to revive stalled peace talks.

Taking place in a region that has long been marked by religious disputes and clashes of imperial powers over its oil reserves, the war in Iran has drawn conflicting views from a plethora of religious and secular communities, such as the recent public disagreement between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV. Given Iran’s unique political system as a theocratic republic controlled by an authoritarian regime — marked by recent and repeated state violence against its citizens — the differences between Islamic and Sharia law, religious and nationalist values, and domestic and foreign interests are central to discourses on moral authority with respect to the conflict. 

Recent reporting indicates that U.S. military involvement continues to deepen with increased naval presence and threats of further escalation, while diplomatic efforts involving mediators such as Pakistan attempt to revive stalled peace talks. Nonetheless, a rapid end to the conflict (as promised by Trump’s initial announcement of the war) seems unlikely at present. 

The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass, has remained a central flashpoint in regional tensions, with repeated disruptions and heightened naval patrols reported by international maritime monitoring groups. 

Analysts and international observers have described the broader escalation of a wider regional security breakdown with ongoing concerns about spillover effects into neighboring countries. 

Before the February airstrikes, protests erupted across Iran on Dec. 28 as frustrations over severe economic issues (including the collapse of Iran’s currency in early December), political repression and deteriorating living conditions boiled over.

The war has also had immediate global consequences. Airspace closures and evacuations across the Middle East disrupted international travel, stranding civilians and forcing governments to organize large-scale evacuations. At the same time, a growing global jet fuel shortage has raised concerns about continued flight disruptions heading into the summer travel season.

The U.S. government provided several varied justifications for the war at various points, from concerns over the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons (which have been highly contested by experts) to a more ideological desire to topple the oppressive regime. 

Before the February airstrikes, protests erupted across Iran on Dec. 28 as frustrations over severe economic issues (including the collapse of Iran’s currency in early December), political repression and deteriorating living conditions boiled over. Beginning with strikes by shopkeepers in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, demonstrations quickly spread nationwide, with protesters calling for fundamental changes and greater respect for human rights.  

Iranian authorities responded with large-scale crackdowns. According to Amnesty International, security forces (including units of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and national police) used violent force to disperse crowds and opened fire on civilians, resulting in widespread casualties. Between Jan. 8 and 9, as many as 30,000 people were killed on the streets of Iran. The Iranian government previously used lethal force to suppress the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising and 2019 protests.   

Recently, humanitarian organizations and regional monitoring groups have reported worsening displacement, infrastructure damage and strain on food and medical supply chains across affected areas. These disruptions have compounded existing vulnerabilities in parts of the Middle East.

These developments have unfolded alongside the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict, where ceasefire negotiations remain uncertain and humanitarian conditions continue to deteriorate. Together, the overlapping crises have heightened global anxiety about the risk of a larger regional war.

“I’m not afraid of the Trump administration or of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel, which is what the church works for.” Pope Leo XIV

Amid this backdrop, an unusual and highly publicized conflict has emerged between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV, highlighting tensions between political and moral authority during wartime.

The dispute intensified after Pope Leo criticized the violence and human cost of the Iran war, urging renewed peace talks and warning against using religion to justify war. Trump, in turn, publicly attacked the pope, accusing him of weakness and misrepresenting his stance.

“I’m not afraid of the Trump administration or of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel, which is what the church works for,” Leo said. 

David Gibson, director of Fordham’s Center on Religion and Culture, said the clash reflects both the pope’s growing authority and the political pressures that surround him.

“When a pope is elected, the job comes with authority,” Gibson said. “(But) it’s almost a year since his election and he’s really coming into his own.”

Rather than actively seeking conflict, Gibson emphasized that “events have found Leo,” pointing to criticism from political leaders that prompted the pope to respond. 

Gibson described the pope’s approach as a continuation of the legacy of Pope Francis, noting that both leaders have spoken out against war. However, he emphasized that Leo’s American identity and different communication style distinguish him from his predecessor, making his statements more difficult to dismiss domestically.

Gibson said Trump’s attacks could carry political consequences, particularly among Catholic voters.

“For him to deliberately provoke American Catholics … it’s political suicide,” Gibson said.

He added that the dispute could deepen divisions within the Catholic community while simultaneously elevating the Church’s broader public image as “a lot of Americans,” even non-Catholics, are looking to Pope Leo “as the moral voice that we need.”

“We can speak broadly about ‘nationalist sentiments’ versus ‘religious sentiments’; as organizing principles for resistance to colonization, aggression, occupation, war; but often these ideologies overlap.” Sarah Eltantawi, Co-director of the International Studies Program and associate professor of theology

Sarah Eltantawi, co-director of the International Studies Program and associate professor of theology, explained that understanding the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran requires moving beyond Western assumptions about divisions between religion and politics.

“In the Middle East, the distinction between ‘the political realm’ and the ‘religious realm’ is not as defined as in the U.S. and certainly in Europe, and again it depends on the country and the conflict,” Eltantawi said. “We can speak broadly about ‘nationalist sentiments’ versus ‘religious sentiments’; as organizing principles for resistance to colonization, aggression, occupation, war; but often these ideologies overlap.”

Eltantawi also highlighted how that overlap becomes especially visible when examining religious and political justifications for conflict in the region.

“People in the Middle East (and here I mean the Arab world and Iran) do not by and large see themselves as the protagonists of war; in other words, they do not see themselves as starting the wars. … they see themselves as the victims of aggression, attempts at land theft, genocide, ethnic displacement, and forced resource extraction,” Eltantawi said. “Given this, for some who stand on religion to face their circumstances, the question then becomes about how to respond to or resist aggression – and here is where religion can take a form of literal physical resistance.”

“If you accept my insistence that speaking truth to power in the imperial core (the US, and in the case of the war in Iran and other wars in the MENA region, Israel) is a fundamentally different exercise than thinking about religion and politics from within the MENA region at this time, than what Pope Leo has done is really unique in the twenty-first century.” Sarah Eltantawi, Co-director of the International Studies Program and associate professor of theology

What this resistance should look like, of course, is wildly controversial. Eltantawi noted that, under Islamic Law, there are three general potential circumstances for “just war”: self-defense, threat to life and property, and freedom of religion. While the Iranian regime has not typically used this exact language, the principle is emblematic of how war changes the calculus of moral authority. 

In the Middle East, Eltantawi explained, the balance of religious and political influences looks different than in the West “because often ‘the political’ … (is) not driving events; it is more a question of construing and utilizing religious sentiment and organization to respond to aggression.” 

“If you accept my insistence that speaking truth to power in the imperial core (the US, and in the case of the war in Iran and other wars in the MENA region, Israel) is a fundamentally different exercise than thinking about religion and politics from within the MENA region at this time, than what Pope Leo has done is really unique in the twenty-first century,” Eltantawi said. 

She went on to further commend Leo’s actions. 

Over the years, the Emirati government had clashed with OPEC regarding concerns with the cartel’s price control and oil quotas, viewing the pull-out as the best decision.

“Pope Leo stood before the war machine, to my mind, symbolically placing himself before a tank, and declared, ‘I am not a politician. I speak of the Gospel’ and this made the politicians stop, it made them defensive, and it put them on the backfoot,” Eltantawi said. “It was brilliant and moving. Moreover, I can guarantee you that there are probably millions of Muslims as a result that thought, ‘Yes, excellent, please do speak of the Gospel.’”

In the latest development to emerge amid the ongoing conflict, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced on April 28 that the country would be pulling out of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). This decision, which will go into effect on May 1, ends a 58-year membership with the cartel, stopping an economic alliance. Over the years, the Emirati government had clashed with OPEC regarding concerns with the cartel’s price control and oil quotas, viewing the pull-out as the best decision. The UAE is not the first gulf country to leave OPEC; Qatar’s withdrawal in 2019. 

A ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran was drafted on April 8 by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, intended to last until April 21. At the time of publication, the ceasefire is still in place while conversations between the nations continue.