Could we regard the war on Iran as a “fourth crusade”?
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Bradford: The war with Iran has now entered its third week, and there is little indication that the conflict will end soon. Instead, its scope appears to be widening gradually, raising fears that it could evolve into a far broader regional confrontation.
To many observers, the conflict looks less like a limited strategic operation and more like the product of geopolitical ambition and miscalculation.
Yet some commentators have gone further, suggesting that the crisis reflects deeper historical tensions between the Western world and the Muslim world, tensions that echo the long memory of the medieval Crusades.
From this perspective, the present confrontation is not merely about military strategy, political influence, or control of resources in the Middle East.
Rather, it can be interpreted as part of a longer historical narrative shaped by centuries of rivalry, mistrust, and competing religious and civilisational identities. The symbolism surrounding Jerusalem, a city sacred to Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike, illustrates how political decisions can resonate far beyond diplomacy.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/the-iran-us-israel-conflict-and-pakistan/
One moment frequently cited by critics of current policy was the decision during Donald Trump’s presidency to move the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and formally recognise the city as Israel’s capital.
For supporters, the move corrected a historical anomaly. For opponents, it signaled an abandonment of neutrality in one of the world’s most sensitive disputes and reinforced the perception that Washington had aligned itself completely with Israel’s political ambitions.
In this interpretation, Trump found a willing partner in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose long-standing security doctrine has emphasised confronting Iran as Israel’s primary regional rival.
Critics argue that their policies reflect a broader strategic project: weakening states that could challenge Western or Israeli influence in the Middle East.
They point to earlier conflicts in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, where Western military interventions, often justified on the grounds of removing authoritarian rulers or preventing humanitarian crises, ultimately destabilised entire regions.
The pattern, according to this argument, has been consistent. Leaders such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Bashar al-Assad were portrayed as tyrants, while internal unrest and opposition movements were encouraged or supported.
Once instability took hold, Western intervention followed. Whether one views these actions as humanitarian interventions or geopolitical maneuvers, the result was the fragmentation of several major states in the Muslim world.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/where-are-we-in-the-usa-israel-illegal-war-on-iran/
For critics, the broader strategy has been twofold: first, to dismantle strong regional powers capable of resisting Western influence, and second, to ensure that remaining states remain economically or militarily dependent on Western alliances for security.
In such an environment, Iran appears to many as the last major regional actor still openly challenging that order.
Historical parallels are often invoked. Before Salahuddin Ayyubi, known in the West as Saladin, confronted the Crusader kingdoms in the twelfth century, the Muslim world was deeply fragmented.
The Abbasid caliphate had lost real political authority, rival dynasties competed for legitimacy, and ideological divisions weakened collective resistance. This internal disunity allowed Crusader states to establish themselves across the Levant.
Some analysts see echoes of that era today: a Middle East divided by rivalries, weakened by internal conflict, and struggling to form a unified political response. Whether such comparisons are historically accurate or rhetorically exaggerated, they resonate strongly in political discourse across the region.
The warning voiced recently by North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, who cautioned Arab nations that failing to support Iran today might lead to a stronger Israel tomorrow, reflects how global actors are framing the conflict in stark civilisational terms.
Ultimately, describing the present war as a “fourth crusade” may be more metaphor than reality. Yet the persistence of that language reveals how deeply historical memory shapes modern geopolitics. In a region where the past is never entirely past, the narratives societies choose to believe can be as powerful as armies themselves.
The author is a British citizen of Pakistani origin with a keen interest in Pakistani and international affairs.
The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.
