The intersection of medieval religious warfare and modern geopolitical strategy has become a central point of contention within the United States Department of Defense. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, whose tenure has been marked by a decisive and aggressive posture toward adversaries in the Middle East, has long maintained a public and personal fascination with the Crusades—the series of religious wars fought between the late 11th and 13th centuries to secure control of the Holy Land.
This ideological affinity is not merely academic. During his Senate confirmation hearing on January 14, 2025, Hegseth addressed questions regarding tattoos on his body that feature Christian symbols and references to the Crusades. While Hegseth defended these as expressions of faith, critics and some lawmakers questioned whether such imagery reflects an extremist worldview that could influence the administration of the U.S. Military. Reporting on the hearing noted that the tattoos became a flashpoint for debates over whether the Secretary’s personal beliefs align with the pluralistic requirements of leading a diverse armed force.
The Secretary’s worldview is further detailed in his 2020 book, American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free
. In the text, Hegseth frames the modern struggle against political “leftists” and Islamic extremism as a continuation of a historical pattern, suggesting that the West must once again engage in a spiritual and physical struggle to preserve its values. The book’s final chapter, titled Make the Crusade Great Again
, explicitly links medieval religious conflict with contemporary American political goals.
The Historian’s Critique: Simplification vs. Reality
The narrative promoted by Secretary Hegseth—which characterizes the original Crusades as a “defensive war” necessitated by the threat of Islamic expansion—has been sharply contested by scholars of medieval history. Matthew Gabriele, a professor of medieval history, has argued that presenting the Crusades as a simple reactive measure is an extreme oversimplification of a complex era of conquest, political maneuvering, and religious violence.
Historians warn that viewing the medieval past through a lens of “civilizational clash” can lead to dangerous misinterpretations of modern conflicts. When the logic of a “holy war” is applied to current foreign policy, it risks stripping away the diplomatic and political nuances of a region, replacing them with a binary struggle between faiths. This framework is particularly concerning given the current U.S. Military engagement in the Middle East.
Application in Modern Conflict: Operation Epic Fury
The tension between Hegseth’s historical worldview and modern military strategy has become acute during the current conflict with Iran. Under the leadership of the Trump administration, the U.S. And Israel launched Operation Epic Fury
, a massive bombing campaign designed to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, naval capabilities, and missile infrastructure. Official outlines of the operation indicate a goal of decisive destruction rather than long-term occupation.
In a speech delivered in early 2026, Hegseth emphasized that the mission in Iran would not result in “20 years of nation-building,” contrasting the current strategy with the “dumb” attempts at state-building seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, his rhetoric remains stark. On April 16, 2026, Hegseth warned Iranian leaders to choose wisely
, stating that the U.S. Military is prepared to resume bombing campaigns if a deal is not reached with U.S. Negotiators. CNN reported that this ultimatum underscores a high-stakes approach to diplomacy backed by the threat of overwhelming force.
The Risks of “Clash of Civilizations” Rhetoric
The primary concern for analysts is that a “Crusader” mentality may inadvertently escalate conflicts by framing them as existential religious battles rather than political disputes. When a conflict is viewed as a “holy war,” the room for diplomatic compromise shrinks, and the perceived necessity for total victory increases. This approach can alienate potential regional allies and fuel extremist recruitment by validating the narrative that the West is engaged in a religious war against Islam.
the use of Crusade-related imagery has been flagged by organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which notes that certain medieval symbols have been appropriated by hate groups to signal white supremacy and anti-Islamic sentiment. While Hegseth maintains his tattoos are expressions of personal faith, the overlap between his imagery and the symbols used by extremist movements continues to fuel scrutiny from congressional oversight committees.
Current Status and Next Steps
As of May 2, 2026, Secretary Hegseth remains at the center of a fierce debate regarding the role of faith and historical interpretation in the leadership of the Pentagon. His first congressional appearance since the start of the war against Iran saw him facing intense questioning from Democratic lawmakers over the legality and morality of the current bombing campaigns. NPR reported on the House Committee on Armed Services meeting held on May 1, 2026, where the Secretary defended the necessity of the operation to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The next critical checkpoint for the Department of Defense will be the upcoming review of the Fiscal Year 2027 budget, which will determine the sustained funding for Operation Epic Fury and the continued U.S. Military presence in the region. Whether the “American Crusade” remains a personal philosophy or continues to shape the strategic architecture of U.S. Foreign policy will depend on the outcomes of these ongoing military operations and the subsequent congressional oversight.
World Today Journal encourages readers to share their perspectives on the intersection of personal belief and public office in the comments below.