Iran has chosen as expected the son of the former Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei’s son Mojtaba Khamenei has been hailed as the new Ayatolla. Israel has instantly threaten to kill him. They are consumed with their Neocon Netanyahu’s ignorant ideas that completely fail to grasp that this is a religious leader and the Shia Muslims have a very detailed and central belief in an end-of-the-world scenario, but it is fundamentally different in its key figures and sequence of events from the one preached by many Christian evangelicals.
Both traditions believe history is moving toward a divinely ordained climax, but the main character of that climax is different. For Christian evangelicals, it is Jesus Christ returning in glory. For Shia Muslims, it is Imam al-Mahdi returning to establish justice.
My father always taught me that it is NOT what I believe that governs the actions of any adversary, it is what they believe. Killing the Ayatollah did nothing but REINFORCE their view that America and Israel are agents of the Great Satan. The killing of their religious leader like Ayatollah Khomeini or even the political leader Qasem Soleimani are often interpreted by believers as signs or precursors that fit into the existing narrative. The way a Shia Muslim views the U.S. and Israel in this context is more nuanced than a simple one-to-one fulfillment of prophecy.
Israel’s policy of assassinating leaders has crossed the line. Rumors are now circulating that Netanyahu is flying in circles over Israel knowing that Iran can now adopt their own tactics and target to keep killing Israeli leaders. They have walked right into this justification for war against Israel that they and the United States are indeed the Great Satan and this is in fact a precursor to the End Days. The United States is seen as the “Great Satan” and “Little Satan” is Israel. This view was popularized by Ayatollah Khomeini during the 1979 Iranian Revolution to silence his opposition that were against a religious state. These have been primarily political and ideological terms. They stem from specific grievances:
U.S.: Seen as supporting the repressive Shah of Iran, opposing the revolution, and later as a hegemonic power intervening in the Middle East (e.g., in Iraq, supporting Israel).
Israel: Viewed through the lens of the Palestinian conflict, as an occupying power, and as a non-Muslim state established in the heart of the Muslim world.
These are modern political conflicts, not direct prophecies from the 9th century. While the U.S. and Israel aren’t named in the original religious texts, believers who see the world through this lens will look for ways to map contemporary events onto the prophesied end-times framework the same as people do with predictions from Nostradamus. Here’s how the connection is often made:
The U.S. as a Force of Fitna (Chaos/Corruption): The Mahdi is prophesied to appear when the world is filled with injustice and oppression. For many Shia, the global power and influence of the U.S., which they see as supporting corrupt regimes and causing instability, is a prime example of the kind of “arrogant power” (mustakbirin) that creates the very injustice the Mahdi will come to destroy.
Israel’s Role and the “Bayt al-Maqdis”: Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis) holds immense significance in Islamic eschatology. It is the site from which the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven and, as we discussed, where Jesus will descend. Therefore, any conflict involving Jerusalem and Israel is immediately viewed through an eschatological lens. The struggle over the city is seen as a central part of the final, cosmic battle between good and evil.
Al-Dajjal (The Deceiver): Some modern Shia clerics and thinkers have drawn parallels between the characteristics of al-Dajjal—a deceptive, one-eyed figure who will lead the world astray with false promises and control over resources—and the global power structures they associate with the U.S. and its allies. This is a metaphorical and interpretive leap, not a core doctrine. The idea is that the system led by the “Great Satan” is a modern manifestation of the deceptive power of al-Dajjal.
The Killing of a Leader Has Always Been Rejected in War
The idea that killing a leader can eliminate the ability to surrender is a recognized principle in military doctrine. For instance, in the theory of nuclear warfare, some strategies specifically exclude decapitation strikes for this very reason. The logic is that it’s better to keep the adversary’s command and control structures intact so that a single, recognized authority remains who is capable of negotiating a surrender or ceasefire.
Killing of a leader does not fulfill end a war nor will it intimidate replacement leaders. It reinforces the very resistance. I habe warned that these actions are highly dangerous and if the objective is to subjugate Iran, you have merely created another generation of hatred.
