American drone boats attack an Iranian submarine

Three American drone boats attacked an Iranian ship facility and submarine in a kamikaze mission on Sunday, marking the first combat use of sea drones by US forces. The vessels, known as Saronic Corsairs, are twenty-four feet long. They can travel more than a thousand miles and carry payloads of up to a thousand pounds.

According to one analyst, they are “another example of how wartime drives rapid adoption of new capabilities.”

Sea drones are just one element of renewed fighting between the US and Iran in recent days. The United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Defense said Iranian missiles attacked two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, killing one crew member and injuring eight. The US military said it conducted a third consecutive night of strikes on Iran on Monday. President Trump has announced that the US will reinstate its blockade of Iranian ports and charge a 20 percent security fee on all cargo shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

As the war escalates, many are wondering how, or if, it will end. A recent article offers a response I have not seen elsewhere and leads to a conversation that is relevant to us all, whatever conflicts we are facing today.

“A mutually unsatisfying stalemate”

Ali Vaez is Senior Adviser to the President and the Iran Project Director at the International Crisis Group in Brussels, Belgium. He holds positions at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies as well.

In a new article on the US-Iran war for Foreign Affairs, he explains how “a deadlocked conflict can pave the way for peace.” In his view, the escalating conflict “has descended into a mutually unsatisfying stalemate.” He explains:

Washington is clearly unable to topple the Islamic Republic, to compel it to give up its nuclear program, to make it stop supporting its regional allies, or to get it to give up control over the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran is unable to force the United States to vacate its backyard or to abandon its use of coercive economic and military tools. The war, in other words, has made it plainly apparent that neither government can deliver a knockout blow to the other at an acceptable cost—and that unmanaged hostility has become too costly and perilous.

Accordingly, he reports that “for the first time in nearly a decade, senior American and Iranian officials have met directly as part of negotiations,” and that this may create the first hotline to connect their militaries since revolutionaries stormed the American embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Vaez reminds us that the US eventually normalized relations with China and Vietnam after many years of conflict with both. If the US and Iran could similarly create a stable relationship, he writes that this “would eliminate one of the main engines of escalation in the Middle East, reducing the risk that every local conflict turns into a regional war. And it might entice Iran to compete less through disruption and more through diplomacy and commerce.”

However, disruption is at the heart of Iran’s theocratic regime and mission. 

As I have discussed in detail over the years, the Islamic revolution that brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power in 1979 is intended to pave the way for the return of the Mahdi, their version of a messiah, by expelling the West from the Middle East, destroying Israel, and exporting their version of Islam around the world. Militant proxies who exist to annihilate the Jewish state are key to this mission, as Hamas’s October 7 invasion horrifically illustrates.

Unlike China and Vietnam, Iran’s leaders are committed to an apocalyptic vision that cannot compromise with the “infidels” lest it fail itself.

Bad ideas have victims

Fighting spiritual battles with secular means commits what philosopher Gilbert Ryle called a “category mistake.” The questions, “What color is the number seven?” and “Does Thursday sing?” are examples.

While Israel, the US, and the West must obviously defend themselves against Iranian aggression and seek ways to keep the mullahs from nuclear weapons, those of us who understand the reality and urgency of spiritual warfare must utilize spiritual tools in fighting this battle with the spiritual ideology behind the conflict.

Paul warned that “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4). As my friend John Stonestreet notes, ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims.

Accordingly, praying every day for spiritual awakening to sweep Iran and transform its leaders is one of the most patriotic ways we can serve our nation and one of the most powerful ways we can serve our Lord. I have often asked us to intercede for Iran in this way, but I need a frequent reminder of the urgency of this calling.

As we ask God to strengthen and defend believers in the Islamic Republic and to reveal himself to its jihadist leaders, we are only asking him to do what he did for early Christians in Damascus and with Paul on his way to persecute them. Anything our God has ever done, he can still do.

Have you prayed for awakening in Iran yet today?