Over the past decade, the U.S. has sought out a foreign policy agenda in the Middle East that has notably differed from that which existed before. This paradigm shift can be attributed to the influence that Christian Zionism has had on both the United States’ domestic and international fronts. Christian Zionism is an ideology that has existed for over a century and half but has only acquired tangible political significance over the past ten years. While there has been focus on and acknowledgement of the influence of Jewish lobby groups, the most prominent one being that of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), there has been little attention paid to the American Christian Zionist movement that often provides stronger and more determined support for Israel. This movement’s political clout can be seen by examining the makings of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy agenda, which has contributed to an era of pronounced violence and instability in the region. It can be argued, then, that Christian Zionism’s political impact on U.S. foreign policy stands as one of the greatest threats to Middle East peace and U.S. national security.

Before delving into how Christian Zionism effects issues in the Middle East, it is important to understand the basic geopolitical history of the region. The complications facing the Middle East today can be traced back to what is coined “The Eastern Question”. This question stems from the diplomatic and political problems resulting from the decay of the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century, and has continued to raise a variety of concerns during the 19th, 20th, and now into the 21st centuries. Although the different time periods brought rise to multiple heterogeneous issues, in a broad sense the Eastern Question addresses the competition among major powers for influence in what is today the Middle East and the instability in the European territories that results from this struggle.

The Eastern Question in its contemporary form has resulted in many dangers threatening both regional and world peace. Kiracofe states, “Britain’s Palestine policy in the 19th and 20th centuries set the stage for a dangerous new rephrasing of this old and reoccurring question” (xii). This can indeed be seen through the Arab-Israeli conflict, the war in Iraq, the crisis in Lebanon, and tensions with Iran and Syria, all of which have occurred within the last decade. Major countries with significant interests in the region, including the USA, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Japan, have continued to involve themselves in the affairs of the Middle East for social, political, and economic reasons. In the United States, however, some have decided to intervene for religious goals as well. The Christian Right specifically has embraced a Christian Zionist ideology that has become a growing and influential force in U.S politics that provides a compelling yet disturbing answer to the Eastern Question.

Christian Zionism is a relatively new term and as a result there is controversy regarding a generally accepted definition. While one definition can be that it is “a movement within Protestant fundamentalism that understands the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial, and religious support” (Spector 2), some say this definition is incomplete as not all Christian Zionists are necessarily fundamentalists. Rather, we can and will define a Christian Zionist as a Christian “whose faith, often in concert with other convictions, emotions, and experiences, leads them to support the modern state of Israel as the Jewish homeland” (Spector 3). An ideology motivating and shaping the viewpoint of the Christian Right, a growing political force in the USA, Christian Zionism aims to influence legislation and foreign policy through manifold means. It is best known to be particularly effective through its integration with the powerful Israel lobby in Washington. However, I will go into further detail about this aspect of its political capital later in the paper.

There are two camps of adherents among Christian Zionists, notably Biblical Zionists and dispensationalists. Biblical Zionists support Israel because of their belief in biblical literature, which blesses the Jewish people as God’s ‘chosen people’ and recognizes the land of greater Israel as a permanent gift from God himself. This paper will focus more on dispensationalists, however, as they tend to be far more committed in their support for Israel. Green comments on the nature of American Christian Zionism, stating that it “is embedded in a powerful theological current that has had a profound impact on American evangelicalism: dispensationalism” (335). Dispensationalism is an evangelical, futurist Biblical interpretation that understands God to have related to human beings in different ways under different Biblical covenants in a series of “dispensations”, or periods in history. Dispensationalists interpret the Book of Revelation literally as predictions of the future rather than as an account of past events, and believe that God has yet to fulfill his promises to the nation of Israel. Prominent among these promises are his land promises, which according to dispensationalists, will result in “a millennial kingdom and Third Temple where Christ, upon his return, will rule the world from Jerusalem for a thousand years” (Kiracofe 51).

Dispensationalism doctrinally has a radical and purely egoistical use for the state of Israel. Kiracofe writes, “It specifically requires the physical and political restoration of the entire Holy Land, geographic Palestine, to the Jewish people as an exclusive possession, in order to advance the eschatological scenario” (xiv). This is because dispensationalists view the establishment of Israel in 1948, followed by the Six-Day war in 1967 (resulting in the seizure of all of Jerusalem and the West Bank) as the beginning of a fulfillment of biblical prophecies. They believe that history is divided into seven dispensations in which people have been or will be tested, and that the present era, or the sixth period, is the End Times. Dispensationalists hope to use U.S. power to summon a certain path leading to Armageddon. Armageddon is an essential component in their belief because prior to Christ’s sudden return, there will be a ‘tribulation’ period of seven years during which nonbelievers and Jews will suffer. This will finally culminate in the ‘Battle of Armageddon’. Conveniently, dispensationalists believe that they will be physically removed from earth to heaven through a secret rapture during this tribulation period (Kiracofe 51). In essence, the Jews will serve as ‘sacrificial lambs’ who act as caretakers in ensuring the consecrated destiny of the Christian Zionists.

As a result, dispensationalists hinder the path to a two-state solution consisting of a sovereign Palestine alongside the state of Israel (Mohr 312). Hidden from public oversight, Christian evangelicals have been working effectively to ensure that the U.S. will be on what they think is the ‘right-side’ of the Biblical blueprint. Unfortunately, this blueprint makes Christian Zionists relatively apathetic towards the rights of the Palestinian people. It is important to note, however, that the dispensationalist outlook stands in stark contrast to the positions of most denominations in mainline American Protestantism, which traditionally embrace a metaphorical interpretation of biblical prophecy and encourage a fair resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The primary reason Christian Zionists are able to exert the influence they do is because they hold significant voting power. The majority of Christian Zionists are evangelical Christians “who make up roughly 26.3 per cent of the total U.S population” (Mohr 290). The size of this population provides Christian Zionists with considerable voting power, as their population is roughly “four times that of non religious voters, and twelve times the number of Jewish voters” (Mohr 290). The potential and existing power of this constituency clearly makes it an extremely important group to examine in order to further understand what influences U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Furthermore, while membership lists of Christian Zionist organizations such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI) count about 2 million members, the actual constituency is in reality many times larger. This is primarily due to the reach of mass television evangelism and mega-churches. Therefore, the actual number of Christian Zionists is upwards of 40 million, which accounts for almost 15 per cent of the U.S population. Aside from the sheer number of Christian Zionists, Evangelical Christians are also more predisposed to vote, and are more likely to support the Republican Party, which has allowed them to secure a greater power than mere membership statistics may imply.

As mentioned earlier, the alliance between Christian Zionists and the Israel lobby has magnified the lobby’s stranglehold on U.S. politicians. Christian Zionism is an indispensable ideological component of the overall Israel lobby (AIPAC) and prominent leaders of the Zionist cause have recognized this fact. Michael Freund, former director of communications for Benjamin Netanyahu wrote, “Thank God for Christian Zionists. Like it or not, the future of the relationship between Israel and the U.S. may very well hinge far less on America’s Jews than on its Christians” (Mearsheimer 133). Christian Zionists’ beliefs align with groups in the American and Israeli Jewish communities that support the illegal settlements and undermine efforts towards the two-state solution. In fact, John Hagee, founder and National Chairman of Christians United for Israel, stated that “’God opposes giving away the land’ and claims his movement has raised more than $12 million to help settle new immigrants in Israel, including in settlements in the Occupied Territories” (Mearsheimer 134). Israeli hardliners would be foolish not to take all of the support they can get. The Israel lobby essentially plays the influential role that it does because of the diverse nature of American Zionism. Interest group cohesion is a significant defining factor of monolithic unity, and the lobby both wisely and successfully utilizes this. As a result, Christian Zionists, Zionist Jews, and right-wing Israelis form an ironclad coalition that ultimately has a fundamental impact on U.S. foreign policy.

Perhaps the fiercest and most dangerous force in U.S. politics is not the relationship between Christian Zionists and AIPAC but rather the ‘marriage’ formed between Christian Zionists and neoconservatives. This fusion of religion and politics has remained largely unrecognized in American politics. Neoconservatives are using unbounded fundamentalist Evangelical support for Israel to further their agenda in the Middle East. Neoconservatism embraces a hawkish political ideology that views American military leadership as good for both the U.S. and the world at large. Mearsheimer explains, “Most neoconservatives extol the virtues of American hegemony – and sometimes even the idea of an American empire – and they believe U.S. power should be used to encourage the spread of democracy and discourage potential rivals from even trying to compete with the United States. In their view, spreading democracy and preserving U.S. dominance is the best route to long-term peace” (Mearsheminer 129). Simply put, neoconservatives hope to create a bandwagon effect where weaker adversaries will choose the path of least resistance.

This agenda is primarily twofold. The first goal is to promote the ‘special relationship’ between the United States and Israel. This is usually accomplished through utilization of connections in Washington think tanks, committees, and publications as well as through use of the media. The second goal entails neoconservative dreams of regional transformation through a plan to reorder the Middle East. This would require regime changes in Iraq, Syria, and Iran and is illustrated clearly through policy papers (Kiracofe 160). In the 1990’s, “The paper that achieved the greatest notoriety was entitled ‘A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm’ and was presented to Benjamin Netanyahu…It was a road map for terminating the peace process” (Kiracofe 160). Neoconservative ambitions resemble those of imperial dreams, in which a strong and unthreatened Israel can be used as a marcher state to project the U.S.’s imperial power. This ideology conveniently satisfies the demands of the Christian Zionist movement as well.

The Bush administration offers a unique and remarkably transparent example of just how instrumental Christian Zionists and neoconservatives have been both domestically and abroad. George W. Bush relied heavily on his political ties with the Christian Right in order to win the presidential elections in both 2000 and in 2004. He first formed these ties when he converted to conservative evangelicalism in 1984 and had reached out to the evangelical community during his father’s presidential election campaign. Consequently, he obtained the endorsement of powerful leaders like Jerry Falwell, an important Southern Baptist leader of the Christian Right. In 2000, recognizing that he too would need substantial help from fundamentalist leaders, “he recruited neoconservative policy advisors whose militant Zionism would naturally win favor with the Christian Right. When the election came…evangelicals did indeed deliver for Bush – as they would again in 2004” (Kiracofe 159). Once elected, Bush composed a foreign policy team including the likes of determined neoconservatives including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliot Abrams. Encouraging a radical departure from the traditional norms of American foreign policy, which was a policy of constructive commercial and cultural engagement, these neoconservatives wanted to employ a notion of preventative war in the Middle East in order to attempt a sociopolitical transformation of the region. A drastic shift in U.S. policy towards the Middle East was the consequence.

Widely seen as Bush’s greatest blunder, Iraq serves as a compelling case demonstrating the overlap of Christian Zionist and neoconservative goals. Unlike Clinton, who exclusively attempted to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, George W. Bush avoided getting involved in the peace process. This was because he and his advisors believed that they could transform the Middle East by dealing with Iraq first. James Mann states in The Rise of the Vulcans, “The hawks in the new Bush administration believed that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq would isolate [Yasser] Arafat, making him more conciliatory” (Spector 244). The U.S. was determined to go to war regardless of whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because Israel willed it so. The invasion was less about U.S. national security or even oil, but rather about Israel’s and subsequently the United States’ dominance in a hostile yet vulnerable region. Although the U.N. and the world-community at large were opposed to Bush’s proposition, a lobby-controlled congress and religiously influenced public opinion allowed Bush to take action. Baumgartner elaborates, “For many believers in biblical prophecy, the Bush administration’s go-it-alone foreign policy, hands-off attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and proposed war on Iraq are not simply actions in the national self-interest or an extension of the war on terrorism, but part of an unfolding divine plan” (Baumgartner 172). Regardless of the death tolls, financial costs, and negative media coverage of the Iraq War, fundamentalist evangelical Christians were unaffected in their support because of their firm belief in the Middle East as a part of biblical prophecy.

While neoconservatives believe that pursuing their goals will usher in positive consequences, reality dictates quite the opposite. The alliance formed between Christian Zionists and neoconservatives, and their subsequent courses of action, has resulted in what is ultimately detrimental to Middle East peace and U.S. national security. In the case of Iraq, the U.S. encouraged a sectarian divide in order to anchor its hold in the region. This has given rise to an explosion of sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites leading to great polarization and instability throughout the Middle East. This fighting has contributed to the weakening of the Iraqi state, which can no longer effectively or justly exercise authority. Rosen explains this emergence of sectarianism, writing: While there was never perfect harmony, there was also no history of civil war between Sunnis and Shiites until the American invasion of Iraq, nor anything reassembling the international mobilization of sectarianism through media and statements of politicians and clerics. But since the American occupation of Iraq created a bloody civil war, relations between Sunnis and Shiites in the region have deteriorated to the point where if you meet a stranger, the first thing you want to find out if he is Sunni or Shiite (Smith).

A byproduct of these extreme sectarian attitudes in Iraq is an increasingly active al-Qaeda faction that has led to serious growth within the terrorist organization. Al Qaeda has now set up training camps for insurgents in the country’s western deserts, taking advantage of regional instability and government security failures. Iraqi and U.S officials said that in 2012, “the insurgent group had more than doubled in numbers from a year ago – from about 1,000 to 2,500 fighters. And it was carrying out an average of 140 attacks each week across Iraq, up from 75 attacks each week earlier that year, according to Pentagon data” (Jakes). It is clear then that the U.S. is promoting an increasingly radicalized Arab and Islamic world that contributed to the terrorist attacks on September 11th in the first place. This imminent danger is not restricted to only the U.S., as several of its key European allies face threats as well. Extremists are able to utilize powerful recruiting tools through anti-American sentiment as well as sectarian mobilization in order to bolster their base and efficiently produce skilled operatives.

Religious fundamentalism in the United States is swaying coherent foreign policy. The scope and size of the Christian Zionists combined with the power of the Israel lobby and the ideological support of the neoconservatives has allowed these groups to play politicians by the string on issues concerning Israel and the Middle East. While there is certainly no clear solution to the inconspicuous yet deeply troubling problem at hand, there is still hope that this faction’s power can be curtailed. The greatest likelihood in achieving this goal lies in a commitment to more open dialogue in politics and a desperate need for a better-informed American public. This way, politicians can engage in pragmatic debates involving the best interests of the U.S. and of Israel (those of which that do not always lie parallel) without leading down a path to political suicide. Although this remains a tall order, it is one that is essential if substantial and positive change is to be made in the way that the U.S. perceives and handles issues in the Middle East.

Works Cited

Baumgartner, J. C., P. L. Francia, and J. S. Morris. \"A Clash of Civilizations? The Influence of Religion on Public Opinion of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East.\" Political Research Quarterly 61.2 (2008): 171-79. Web. 7 Dec. 2013.

Green, John C. Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996. Print.

Jakes, Lara, and Qassim Abdul-Zahra. \"Al Qaeda Making Comeback in Iraq, Officials Say.\" Washington Times. The Washington Times, 09 Oct. 2012. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.

<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/9/al-qaeda-making-comeback-iraq-officials-say/?page=all>.

Kiracofe, Clifford Attick. Dark Crusade: Christian Zionism and US Foreign Policy. London: I.B. Tauris, 2009. Print.

Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. \"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.\" Middle East Policy 13.3 (2006): 29-87. Web. 6 Dec. 2013.

Mohr, Samuel. \"Understanding American Christian Zionism: Case Studies of Christians United for Israel and Christian Friends of Israeli Communities.\" Journal of Politics & International Studies 9 (2013): 287-331. Web. 7 Dec. 2013.

Smith, Ashley. \"The Imperial Roots of Iraq’s Sectarian Violence.\" Counterpunch.org. N.p., 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.

<http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/11/the-imperial-roots-of-iraqs-sectarian-violence/>.

Spector, Stephen. Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=11444