By Mikhail Yakushev, PhD of Historical Sciences, Deputy Director of the Tsargrad Institute, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences
On the 28th of February 2026, Israel, together with the United States, began launching massive strikes on Iran. On the first day of the attack, the country’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his family, along with 168 schoolgirls aged 8 to 12, and a large number of civilians were killed in the nation’s capital. The unprovoked strikes, promoted by the Israeli media, were immediately dubbed “pre-emptive” and “preventive” by mainstream global news sources, making it clear which side they were going to support during this protracted regional conflict. In addition to Iranian targets, Israel attacked positions of Hezbollah, a Shia organization allied with Iran, in southern Lebanon and Beirut in preparation for a ground operation.
Although this military aggression was a joint effort, Tel Aviv and Washington each pursued their own objectives, which is clearly reflected in the intimidating names of the given military operations. While Israel called forth the “Roar of the Lion”, the US poured its “Epic Fury” upon Iran.
The updated Israeli name for their plan signalled the second phase of last summer’s operation which became named “Rising Lion”. Moreover, according to Prime Minister Netanyahu, “he had dreamt of this strike for forty years”, referring to the joint attack with the US, viewing it as a prelude to the final part of the epochal confrontation with Iran, as revenge for the Babylonian Captivity and the harsh assessments of Iranian leadership regarding the provocative policies of the Zionist leadership in the region and the world. As justification for his aggression, the Israeli Prime Minister trotted out the decades-old argument about Tehran’s alleged readiness to soon create and use nuclear weapons against Israel. In addition to this hackneyed and false claim, Netanyahu arrogantly deemed it entirely appropriate, after the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the schoolgirls, to call on the “brave people of Iran” to rise up against the “bloodthirsty terrorist regime” of the ayatollahs. This appeal demonstrates the extent of Netanyahu and his team’s “understanding” of the sentiments on the Iranian streets after the first day of the operation.
If during the twelve-day war in June 2025 the US named its operation “Midnight Hammer”, this time President Trump chose from twenty names offered to him. The most resounding and intimidating of the bunch were “Epic Fury”. This particular term can be easily and accurately translated into all foreign languages.
Iran, as the party subjected to the unprovoked attack, retained last year’s name for its operation, without attempting to intimidate anyone or play marketing games. Iran’s “True Promise” naming made it clear that Iran’s response to the aggressors is being carried out according to a clearly defined multi-phase plan in the works since 2024. According to this plan, in response to “decapitation” strikes against the Iranian leadership, the Assembly of Experts are to promptly elevate new leaders to replace the fallen, who are even more so irreconcilable enemies of Israel and the US.
Tehran does not hide the fact that it was initially preparing for a long-term confrontation and will increase the pace of its attacks if the Israeli-American aggression continues. Iran did not start the war, but according to Iranian officials, it is Iran that will determine when and how it ends. For Tehran, an acceptable outcome of the war started by Netanyahu is nothing less than the fall of his government and the collapse of Israel’s political system.
It cannot be ruled out that Iran’s “True Promise” may become Tehran’s final and decisive pledge to respond to the aggressors with full force, as the current war has existential or destiny-determining significance for Iran. This is a matter of life and death for their nation.
An unpleasant surprise for the US and Trump personally, who publicly declared the need to physically eliminate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was the Assembly of Experts’ election of the slain spiritual leader’s son – Mojtaba Khamenei. This was a resounding slap in the face from the Assembly of Experts to Trump and Netanyahu!
From the very start of hostilities, the world’s media focused all of its attention on the strikes and the damage inflicted on each other by the warring parties. Tehran’s unexpectedly powerful response caused the White House to become confused about the goals and objectives of the operation. It is strange that in the West no one resolutely condemned the aggressive actions of Israel and the US, which by international law and all other metrics fall under the category of war crimes. Moreover, the Arab countries, after an overnight session, issued a statement condemning Iran’s actions, without mentioning even once the role of the USA and Israel as the initiators of violence.
Officially, Washington explains its participation solely by military logic and the protection of its citizens. However, the high degree of synchronization between the start of the operation and the release of the scandalous “Epstein Files” suggests that America’s domestic political agenda did play an important role in President Trump’s decision to join Netanyahu’s risky scheme. The world watched with horror as the cunning of the diabolical intellect of “The Prince of this World” enacted his bloody will (John 14:30). It is he, who always holds sway where money, debauchery and power for power’s sake reign supreme.
Regarding the ideological justification of the Judeo-biblical and ancient Greco-Roman mythology of the Israeli-American operation, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, as a convinced crusader and Christian Zionist [1], decided to add a Christian appeal for Americans to “kneel every day, with family, in schools, in temples, and pray in the name of Jesus Christ” for victory in Operation “Epic Fury” and for the safety of their servicemen. At a time when the US and Israeli armies were dropping thousands of bombs on a country with a predominantly Shia population, the War Secretary’s appeal during the holy month of Ramadan and the Great Lent of all Christians did not go unnoticed by the Muslims of the Middle East. That is why the American administration is afraid to overdo it with regard to the Islamic ummah, anxiously watching how bombs and rockets are destroying civilian objects of peaceful Shiite Muslims during daytime abstinence from food and water (Al-Sawm) and nighttime prayer (Al-Iftar), potentially turning this localized fight into a global conflict of Christian vs. Muslim.
The question: what was motivating the Israelis and Americans when they chose such intimidating names for their operations?
If we consider this terminology as an artistic choice, several interesting literary parallels can be drawn between it and the content of the poet Virgil’s epic poem “The Aeneid”. This comparison allows us to see how modern military rhetoric can inadvertently resonate with the classical themes from an epic work centered on wrath, fate, and the establishment of a new order.
The main heroine of the poem, the supreme goddess Juno (Hera in Greek mythology), in Book VII of the epic poem The Aeneid, calls upon the evil forces of Hell (Hades), unleashing a malevolent power upon the Trojans in the form of Alecto – one of the three Furies (goddesses of vengeance) [3]. Juno summons the Fury Alecto to spark a war between Aeneas’s Trojans and the Italic tribes. It is Alecto who instills a frenzied rage in Queen Amata and King Turnus, provoking a bloody conflict.
Here, a parallel can be drawn with the ongoing military operation: if we view “Epic Fury” in this context, its name can be metaphorically interpreted not simply as “unbridled rage”, but as the deliberate unleashing of a destructive force (akin to Alecto) in order to radically transform the existing order (in a modern context taking place in the Middle East).
The plot of The Aeneid revolves around the mission of Aeneas, who, driven by fate, is destined to found a new city (Rome) after the destruction of Troy.
A parallel with US rhetoric: in his statements, US President Donald Trump called the operation a ‘noble mission’ aimed at ‘protecting the American people’ and eliminating the ‘threat from a brutal regime’. This echoes the Aenean sense of duty and the inevitability of action, where the leader bears a heavy burden (military casualties) for the sake of the future (“we are doing this for the future”). Just as Aeneas leaves ruined Troy to build Rome, the US rhetoric aims to dismantle the current regime to enable the Iranian people to “take their fate into their own hands” and build a ‘New Tehran’ from the ruins of the ancient capital.
The name ‘Epic Fury’ can also be associated with the epithets that accompany the protagonists of ancient epics. At the very beginning of The Aeneid, Virgil outlines the central conflict of the poem, speaking of “the unforgettable rage of the savage Juno” (saevae memorem Iunonis ob iram). The wrath of gods or heroes in an epic is a force that alters the destinies of nations.
Although the elite architects of “Epic Fury” do not indicate any direct connection with The Aeneid, this military operation inadvertently activates the same cultural codes as the ancient Roman epic: the idea of the fated inevitability of conflict, divine wrath, and a burdensome mission to establish a new world order through the destruction of the old. “Epic Fury” places the action in a similar context: this is not a police action, but an act of retribution or a pre-emptive strike, justified by its sheer power and historical significance merely for questioning the illegality of Israel’s existence as a state. The thing about this branding of a military campaign against Iran is that it is somewhat paradoxical if we look deeper into the meaning of the words. The furies from legend were the embodiment of revenge, but does America have any reason to enact revenge on today’s Persians? Then again one could see far more reasons for revenge against “ally” Israel especially after Trump’s men revealed just who killed Kennedy. The great tale of revenge may wind up having an esoteric target only known to those who look deeper.
If the ‘Lion’s Roar’ is a direct biblical allusion (the Lion of Judah), underscoring Israel’s national and religious identity, then ‘Epic Fury’ refers to the Western (Greco-Roman) classical tradition. This juxtaposition highlights the differing cultural perspectives of the allies: one sees a sacred biblical narrative in the conflict, the other sees a vast, almost mythological confrontation.
However, this operation carries its own “drawbacks” for Israel and the US from the perspective of the three Abrahamic, monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the last two of which are world religions, meaning they have a global character. All three faiths were desecrated on the same day as the astronomical “planet parade”, an appulse, the 28th of February, which fell on the Jewish Sabbath, the Christian Lent, and the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Perhaps, in many ways, this is why things did not go according to plan; Trump failed to involve his proxies in the region (the Kurds and others) in the operation; nor has he yet managed to bring in his NATO allies. Consequently, Trump is forced to prepare for a ground operation alone, and apparently even without Israel, whose army is bogged down in Southern Lebanon.
Let us ask ourselves: are there indications in the New Testament of the Bible providing answers to the challenge thrown down to humanity by an enraged and roaring lion?
Yes, there are – we find it in the First Epistle General of Peter (5:8-9) [4], where the lion is presented not as the Voice of God over the nations, including Israel itself. Regarding the prophet Amos, the image of a roaring lion is used to describe the inevitability of divine judgment. Whereas in Peter’s epistle, the lion appears as the devil.
Here arises the most powerful and paradoxical contrast. In verse 8 of the 5th chapter of the First Epistle General of the Apostle Peter, it is written: ‘Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith…’ (1 Peter 5:8-9). This warning from Peter (5:8) is one of the most vivid and troubling images in the New Testament.
To appreciate this warning, it must be considered on three levels: historical-cultural (why such an image), theological (the nature of the threat), and spiritual-practical (how this applies to Christians today).
1. Historical Context: The ‘Lion’ as a Symbol of Real Threat.
For Peter’s first readers – the Christians of Asia Minor, scattered among the Gentiles – the image of a roaring lion was not an abstract metaphor, but the embodiment of two horrors:
Real Danger: In Palestine and Syria, lions were a widespread menace. For a shepherd, a ‘roaring lion’ signified not just danger, but imminent death, especially for a solitary sheep.
Persecution: At the time of the epistle’s writing (around 64–67 AD), the first state-sponsored persecutions under Emperor Nero had begun. Christians lived in an atmosphere of fear, denunciations, and executions. Peter is saying to them that the source of their fear is not only the emperor, but Satan, who stands behind the system of violence.
Antithesis to Christ: In Scripture, the lion is a symbol both of supreme power (the Tribe of Judah, Christ the Lion of the tribe of Judah, Rev. 5:5) and of destructive evil power. Satan counterfeits the image of Christ, parodying His royal majesty, but his ‘lion’s roar’ is the roar of a killer, not of a Savior.
2. Theological Assessment: The Enemy’s Strategy
Peter uses three verbs that reveal the devil’s methodology:
A) “Walks about” (περιπατεῖ – peripatei)
Satan is not omniscient nor omnipresent (these are attributes of God alone). He is forced to “prowl” the territory. This indicates the limitations of his power, but also his persistence. He seeks not the strong, but the easy prey who have strayed from the flock (from the Church).
B) “Roaring”
Zoologists explain that a lion does not roar while it is killing its prey, but beforehand. The roar paralyses the victim with terror, causing it to freeze or panic, making it easier to kill. In the spiritual sense, Satan’s chief weapon is fear. He attempts not so much to destroy immediately, but to stun the Christian with terror from current circumstances, the future, death, or even simply the opinions and judgment of other humans, thereby depriving him of the ability to reason and to believe.
C) “Seeking whom he may devour” (καταπιεῖν – katapiein)
The word “devour” means “to swallow in one gulp”, “to swallow whole”. This indicates the goal that it doesn’t just merely wish to frighten or make miserable, but to deprive its victim of eternal life and destroy their soul. In the context of an epistle that calls for patience in suffering, “devouring” is the abandonment of faith out of fear of torment.
3. Practical Assessment: Why This Warning is Not Despair, but a Call to Steadfastness
It is important to recognize that this warning sits within a specific structure of instruction. Peter does not merely paint a picture of disaster to frighten, but provides a survival guide:
1. Sobriety and Vigilance. The lion attacks those who are asleep or drunk (metaphorically, those who have lost touch with reality). The Christian is called to an asceticism of the mind: not to succumb to panic nor to be deceived by the illusion that “this won’t affect me” or that one can strike a bargain with evil.
2. Conciliarity (the Antidote). The warning about the lion comes immediately after the exhortation to “clothe yourselves with humility toward one another” (1 Peter 5:5). A solitary sheep is easy prey. The lion attacks those who have strayed from the flock. The context emphasizes: it is not individual bravery that saves, but humble unity with the Church.
3. Steadfastness in Faith. Peter explicitly says: “Resist him, steadfast in the faith” (1 Peter 5:9). Unlike many modern conceptions of “spiritual warfare” as a matter of incantations or loud cries, the apostle indicates that the chief weapon is the effort put into faith. The lion is not driven away by shouting; the lion is forced to retreat when the victim does not flee but stands firm, rooted in Christ.
4. Eschatological Hope. Peter adds that the same sufferings “are experienced by your brotherhood in the world.” This removes the feeling of being uniquely victimized (“God has forsaken me alone”). Moreover, immediately after the warning about the lion comes the promise: “But may the God of all grace… perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you” (1 Peter 5:10).
The essence of the conciliar message of Saint Peter and his warning to Christians lies in the Apostle debunking two dangerous myths:
1. The Myth of Safety. The Christian should not expect the path of faith to be devoid of danger. The world lies under the power of the “lion”, and ignoring this is spiritual complacency.
2. The Myth of Hopelessness. The lion roars, but his power is not absolute. The roar is the bluff of a strong, yet not omnipotent, creature.
For the contemporary Christian, and even for Iranians under bombardment, this text remains relevant not as a call to look for the devil under every bush, but as a reminder: the enemy’s primary tactic is isolation through fear (the roar). The response of faith is sober humility in unity with the Church, a firm reliance on grace, and the understanding that the “roaring one” has already been defeated by the Lamb (Christ), who, paradoxically, proves stronger than the lion.
These teachings are relevant not only for Christians, but for all people who believe in the One God, especially those Muslims who steadfastly resist the “roaring lion”, seized by “epic rage”.
There questions remain unresolved:
– Who will stand firm in this military-political, religious, and ethno-confessional confrontation?
– Will other countries decide to join the US-Israeli coalition in their aggression?
– How will the position of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League change if Israel decides to rebuild the Third Temple on the site of the third holiest site in Islam, the Al-Aqsa Mosque?
– What will be the fate of the Abraham Accords in the event of the loss of Al-Haram Al-Sharif (Al-Aqsa mosque), the third holiest site in Islam?
-How might the position of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League shift if Israel were to move forward with rebuilding the Third Temple on the site of Islam’s third holiest site, Al-Haram Al-Sharif?
-And what would be the fate of the Abraham Accords should the Jewish people risk taking Al-Haram Al-Sharif from the entire Muslim world—Sunnis and Shiites alike—and erect their Third Temple there instead?
—
[1] Christian Zionism is a powerful and influential religious and political movement in the United States in support of Israel, based on a highly questionable and modern interpretation of the Bible.
[2] The Bible. Old Testament. Moscow: Moscow Patriarchate Publishing House, 1989. P. 154.
[3] Alecto (the implacable goddess of wrath for crimes committed), Tisiphone (the avenger of murder), and Megaera (the goddess of revenge, envy, and malice) are the three sisters of the Furies, goddesses of vengeance in ancient Roman mythology; in Greek mythology, the Erinyes. In myths, the Furies are depicted as terrible old women with snakes instead of hair.
[4] The Bible. New Testament. Moscow: Moscow Patriarchate Publishing House, 1989. P. 1214.