We Saw Two Sides of Trump Last Week. Who Knows Which One We'll See This Week.
Sign up for the Surge, the newsletter that covers most important political nonsense of the week, delivered to your inbox every Saturday.
Hello and welcome back to the Surge, Slate's weekly real-time effort to write a prequel to the 2024 movie Civil War. I'm Ben Mathis-Lilley, and I'll be filling in until Labor Day for Jim Newell, who has taken a temporary leave of absence after seeing that Donald Trump has installed two 88-foot flagpoles on the White House grounds. 'I'll be danged if I can't make a million-foot flagpole,' Jim said, retreating into his garage, where a great deal of clanging, banging, and typing 'how to build a flagpole' into the YouTube search bar has since been heard. God bless America!
This week we have, well—frankly, we have some bad stuff. The situation is pretty no-good out there, ranging from extrajudicial-ish harassment of elected officials to the senseless murder of elected officials to Kristi Noem having a mysterious medical event. But first: A potential international catastrophe involving nuclear weapons. (I warned you it was all bad!)
Just over a week ago, Israel launched an attack against Iran using missiles, aircraft, and drones. One ostensible purpose of the attack was to set back Iran's nuclear program, which Israel says could soon be capable of producing a nuclear weapon. Another consequence might be the fall of Iran's government. U.S. intelligence analysts, though, disagreed with Israel about Iran's nuclear timeline, and the State Department—which has been conducting ongoing negotiations with the Iranians regarding nuclear issues—said in a statement that the U.S. was 'not involved' in the offensive. Trump, who has now run for president twice on the premise that he is an isolationist who deplores the idea of America becoming entangled in foreign wars, reportedly told Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu that the whole thing was a bad idea. (Because of, you know, the potential to turn the entire country into a civil war nightmare zone that incubates brutal terrorism. Not that the United States would know anything about that.) Thank you, Mr. President?
Not so fast, actually! Just as it seemed the American ship of state was sailing away from Netanyahu's Folly, Trump suddenly demanded Iran's 'unconditional surrender' in a social media post and began musing about having the U.S. drop a bomb on one of its nuclear facilities. He soon explained to the press, directly contradicting his top intelligence adviser, that he's decided the Iranians actually are close to building a WMD—so close that he wants to abandon the negotiation process that he was committed to until a few days ago. What's the deal? As best as anyone can figure out, Trump got so excited about Fox News' war coverage that it made him want to jump in on the whole war thing himself—and, according to the New York Times, he's now started claiming that he was pushing Netanyahu toward attacking the ayatollahs' regime all along. So, as far as whether the United States does or does not currently support Benjamin Netanyahu's effort to destroy the Iranian government … stay tuned! (This kind of uncertainty about what constitutes national policy on a given day, by the way, is not at all unprecedented in the current White House.)
Last Saturday, an estimated 5 million Americans demonstrated across the country at coordinated 'No Kings' rallies. (By the way: This is why the rallies were called that.) It remains to be seen how much this broad activation of liberals, leftists, and people who simply do not like the cut of Trump's jib will translate into political power; the rallies were nonpartisan, and some Democratic officials wary of the possibility that protests could turn violent have kept their distance. That's not true for all Democrats and all expressions of opposition, though. On Tuesday, New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander attended a federal immigration court hearing with the intent of escorting its subject out of the building past Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel. (ICE agents under Trump have begun waiting outside immigration hearings to snatch individuals whose cases get dismissed by judges at the behest of federal attorneys. Lander and others characterize this as a bait-and-switch tactic that deprives individuals seeking legal status of their due process rights.) The ICE agents, several wearing masks and none bearing visible identification, responded by pushing Lander against a wall, handcuffing him, and detaining him for more than three hours on (dubious-seeming) accusations of 'assaulting law enforcement.' (He was released without charges.) It was the third time in the last month or so that an elected Democrat has been manhandled and handcuffed by federal personnel.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in United States vs. Skrmetti, one of the most high-stakes cases of its current term. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which states that Tennessee's law prohibiting trans minors from receiving 'gender-affirming' medical treatment is constitutional. The most conservative wing of the court seemed to want to do this while further opening the gates to legalized discrimination against transgender adults across the country. Roberts did not go that far—but in order to walk that line, he had to argue Tennessee's law against receiving medical care that accords with one's gender identity does not have anything to do with gender identity. Trans rights advocates were furious, comparing the ruling to Plessy v. Ferguson, which created the 'separate but equal' doctrine justifying Jim Crow; state-level legislative efforts to strip rights from transgender adults, meanwhile, will continue. As Slate legal eagle Mark Joseph Stern puts it, the Roberts decision is an attempt at compromise that will do nothing to settle the issue, instead inviting more bitter conflict. Sound familiar? Like, say, most of what has happened in American politics since roughly Obama's inauguration?
On Saturday morning, a 57-year-old Minnesota man who acquaintances have described as having right-wing Christian views apparently decided, like so many other Americans in recent years, that he needed to kill some liberals. He then allegedly shot two Democratic state legislators and their spouses in their homes, killing one—state Rep. Melissa Hortman—and her husband. On Sunday, MAGA Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted on Twitter/X that the deaths were an example of 'what happens when Marxists don't get their way' (?) and shared an ostensibly humorous (?) meme referring to the shootings as 'Nightmare on Waltz [sic] Street.' (Democrat and former vice presidential candidate Tim Walz is Minnesota's governor.) Lee eventually deleted the posts after being confronted about them in Congress by Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith. But this, unfortunately, will probably not be the last time a right-wing elected official's first reaction to a deadly attack on one of his colleagues is to use it as fodder for glib, misleading online juvenilia.
If it seems like this newsletter has been a bit slanted against the Republican Party, that's only because the GOP has been responsible for the bulk of recent headlines; there are plenty of snarky and deeply disillusioned things we could say about Democrats, too, if given the chance! And we do have one good chance this week in the person of Ken Martin, a former DNC vice chair who became head of the Democratic National Committee in February. (Martin, coincidentally, is also from Minnesota.)
The idea behind picking Martin instead of younger, buzzier Wisconsin state party chair Ben Wikler was that he had the kind of longtime insider relationships that would allow everyone in the party to get moving forward quickly without any unnecessary friction or factionalism. Unfortunately, factional friction is pretty much all that Martin has presided over since. His tenure was sent sideways immediately by a controversy over now-former DNC member and Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg's efforts to fund primary challengers against some Democratic House incumbents; this week, news broke that two major labor leaders have resigned their DNC roles over conflicts with Martin whose nature is unclear. This week, Politico and the Times and the Post all published stories in which Martin's various critics in the party dumped on him, mostly anonymously, for being weak and ineffectual. Does any of this matter for 2026? Probably not, given that Republicans are currently pursuing a sort of super-trifecta of unpopular disaster policies. But it does not necessarily give one confidence that the Democratic Party is going to be capable of getting the American national project back on track the next time it holds power.
In the midst of Lander's confrontation with ICE, the fallout from the murders in Minneapolis, and Trump getting all coy and playful about whether or not he is going to have the world's largest conventional bomb dropped on some nuclear stuff, news started circulating that the U.S. secretary of homeland security (Noem) had suddenly been rushed to a Washington hospital. What the hell, we thought. Sometimes we can't even with all of this. It turned out, according to DHS, that Noem had just experienced an 'allergic reaction' (to what, they didn't say) and is fine. Nonetheless: Sometimes we can't even with all of this!
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? Tell us.
Billionaires are having a day. The White House is a good example of this happy time for the wealthiest among us, since it is the residence (once more) of our first billionaire president, Donald Trump. It was there that he was joined briefly by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, who slashed his way through much of the federal government, then exited to go tend to rockets, electric cars and other ventures. But not to worry. Left behind are five billionaires brought into office by Trump, the most of any administration. Those magnates spent hundreds of millions of dollars to reelect Trump and to throw him an inaugural party. Opinion: What's an oligarchy? With Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' bill, we're living in one. As a national phenomenon, the number of billionaires has grown from one in the 1920s (industrialist Henry Ford) to more than 900. Since the start of the 21st century, that group's wealth has expanded nine times, aided by Trump's 2017 tax cuts. For the country's lower half of earners, the expansion was double, mostly due to stimulus checks. I say all this to set up the question for you: What do we think of this conspicuous power of America's billionaires? Is it something to fear, as President Joe Biden warned on his way out the door, saying there is a growing oligarchy that "threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead"? Or are these exceptional people whom we should celebrate? They are, after all, the group that brought us Starlink, a satellite system that kept Ukraine afloat in its war against Russia. And Amazon. (Boy, I like not going to the store to buy that thingy to fix my dryer. And I get it the next day!) Opinion: You're not really mad at the Bezos, Sánchez luxury Venice wedding. You're just poor. We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum billionaires" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Should billionaires be running the country? Tell us | Opinion


CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Prophecy, not politics, may also shape America's clash with Iran
When most people contemplate the future of America's conflict with Iran, they hunt for clues in grainy satellite photos, statements from military analysts and President Trump's social media posts. But when scholar Diana Butler Bass considers what could happen next, her thoughts turn toward another group she says is now thinking more about prophecy than politics. She recalls warnings from her childhood about the rise of an Antichrist, stories about weeping mothers clutching their empty blankets after their babies were suddenly 'Raptured' to heaven and paintings of an angry Jesus leading armies of angels to an Armageddon-like, final battle in modern-day Israel. Those stories terrified and thrilled Bass when she heard them growing up in a White evangelical church in the 1970s. It was a time when the end always seemed near, and books like the bestseller 'The Late Great Planet Earth' warned Christians to gird their loins for a period of Great Tribulation and prepare for Jesus' triumphant return to Jerusalem. Bass, a prominent, progressive religious author who hosts a popular Substack newsletter called 'The Cottage,' no longer believes those stories. Yet when she considers why the US struck three nuclear facilities in Iran this month and what could happen next, she now offers a prophecy of her own: Bombing Iran will reinforce Trump's status as God's 'Chosen One' and Israel as His chosen nation among many of the President's White evangelical supporters. Many of these supporters dismiss the dangers of a larger war, she tells CNN, because such a clash would mean the world is approaching the 'end times' — a series of cataclysmic events ushering in the Second Coming of Christ and the rise of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. 'There's almost a kind of spiritual eagerness for a war in the Middle East,' says Bass, describing attitudes among some White evangelicals. 'They believe a war is going to set off a series of events that will result in Jesus returning.' Trump's decision to bomb Iran has so far been examined almost exclusively through the lens of politics or military strategy. Yet there is a religious dimension to his decision – and what could happen next – that's been underexplored. America's approach to Iran and Israel may not just be driven by sober assessment of geopolitics. Bass and other religious scholars say US policy in the Middle East is also influenced by the controversial teachings of a pugnacious 19th century Anglo-Irish clergyman and a series of lurid, 'Left Behind' doomsday Christian books and films. This is dangerous, says Jemar Tisby, a historian and best-selling author of 'Stories of the Spirit of Justice.' 'Trump's action underscores how these theological beliefs are not abstract; they have direct, dangerous, and deadly consequences,' Tisby wrote recently in his 'Footnotes' newsletter. He elaborated in an interview this week with CNN, saying that that apocalyptic visions from the Bible should not influence America's policy in Israel or Iran in any way. 'You layer on this prophecy about the rise of Israel and now all of a sudden you have this very literalistic interpretation of the Bible informing US foreign policy,' he says. White evangelicals who see America's conflict with Iran as primarily a spiritual battle instead of a political one tend to be motivated by several beliefs. One belief is that Trump is God's 'chosen one,' saved from assassination last year to do God's work and protect Israel. He is, to borrow from the parlance of evangelical subculture, called 'for such a time as this.' This belief is reflected in a text message to Trump from Mike Huckabee, the prominent evangelical and former Arkansas governor who was appointed by Trump to be US ambassador to Israel. In the text, which was shared by Trump, Huckabee alluded to the two assassination attempts Trump survived last year in saying that God spared him 'to be the most consequential President in a century—maybe ever.' He added, 'I trust your instincts,' because 'I believe you hear from heaven,' and that 'You did not seek this moment. This moment sought YOU!' Huckabee's ambassadorship to Israel is not surprising. Many White evangelicals believe the church is obligated by the Bible to provide unwavering support to Israel. They view the ancient Israel described in the Bible as the same as the modern nation-state of Israel, which was created in 1948. Trump reinforced this view during his first term when he broke from decades of American policy to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The move thrilled many White evangelical leaders, two of whom attended a ceremony marking the occasion. There is a long history of White evangelical leaders urging American presidents and politicians to treat Israel as a divinely favored nation. Many White evangelicals believe Israel's existence is a fulfillment of biblical prophecies that would usher in Jesus' return. Some cite a scripture from Genesis 12:3, which recounts God saying, 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you, I will curse.' That passage depicts God addressing Abraham, the Jewish patriarch and 'father of all nations.' But some White evangelicals say that passage also refers to Israel — both then and now. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz alluded to that scripture when he defended his support of Israel's war with Iran in a recent interview. 'Growing up in Sunday School, I was taught from the Bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed,' he said. Other evangelical leaders have made similar claims. Pastor John Hagee, a prominent evangelical leader, has said that supporting Israel is not a political issue — it's a biblical one. Hagee is the founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, which boasts 10 million members and bills itself as the largest pro-Israel organization in the US. 'It is not possible to say, 'I believe in the Bible' and not support Israel and the Jewish people,' he once declared. Trump won the support of about 8 out of 10 White evangelical Christian voters in the 2024 presidential election. And in a CNN poll after the airstrikes on Iran, 87% of Republicans said they trust Trump to make the right decisions about US' use of force against the country. Franklin Graham, son of the late evangelical leader Billy Graham, said on X after the bombing of Iran 'that the world is in a much safer place.' The Rev. Robert Jeffress, a prominent evangelical leader, suggested last week that opposition to Israel is rebellion against God. While delivering a Sunday sermon praising Trump's decision, Jeffress sermon was interrupted by applause and a standing ovation from his congregation. 'Those who oppose Israel are always on the wrong side of history, and most importantly, they are on the wrong side of God,' Jeffress said. 'And I thank God we finally have a president who understands that truth in Donald Trump.' Such unconditional support of Israel might make spiritual sense to evangelicals. But some scholars say it's a risky stance for a multiracial and multireligious democracy like the US to take. Americans' support for Israel had dropped to historic lows before the US' use of force in Iran. Tisby, the religious historian, tells CNN that the Israel depicted in the Bible is not the same as the modern-day country. 'If you conflate the two, you end up supporting all kinds of actions that hurt people in the name of politics,' Tisby says. 'It leads to the reluctance to recognize the rights of Palestinians. It blinds us to the human rights and justice issues that are at stake in the Middle East.' Tisby and other religion scholars say America's bombing of Iran is also influenced by another source: a form of Christianity pioneered in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish pastor. Darby looked at certain passages in the Bibe's book of Revelations and devised the concept of 'dispensationalism.' It divides history into distinct 'dispensations,' or periods through which God interacts with humanity differently. Many adherents to this tradition believe in a fiery apocalypse and the 'Rapture' — a moment when Christians are suddenly lifted to heaven before a period of tribulation on Earth. Darby's views were amplified a century later by the popular 'Left Behind' novels and films of the 1990s and 2000s, which reached millions of evangelicals with apocalyptic visions of the end times. The book series, inspired by Rapture theology and gory scenes in the Book of Revelation, has sold more than 65 million copies. The 'Left Behind' books were marketed as fiction, but they were treated as biblical truth by many evangelicals. Views of dispensationalism were taught in many evangelical churches, youth camps and Sunday schools, bringing them into the mainstream. Central to dispensationalism is the role of Israel in the last days. Its adherents believe that the establishment of the modern state of Israel marks the beginning of the end times — heralding the Second Coming of Christ. Israel's geopolitical success and security are seen as necessary preconditions for Christ's return, Tisby says. Dispensationalism has permeated White evangelical culture so much that many evangelicals today have adopted its tenets without being familiar with the term, Tisby says. 'Just because you don't have the name doesn't mean you're not actually adhering to the beliefs,' he says. 'It's so common now that it doesn't need to be named anymore.' Prophecies about angelic armies battling demonic armies in an apocalyptic Middle East sound implausible to many, but such beliefs gripped many of the White evangelical pastors and families she grew up with, says Bass, author of 'Freeing Jesus.' She recalls evangelical pastors preaching that whenever Israel gained more territory, it was God's will. Some pastors condemned Iran as evil. Jews, they said, would finally accept Jesus as their savior. But Jesus' return would be preceded by a series of cataclysmic events like the sudden disappearance of God's faithful and those 'left behind' — the non-believers who didn't accept Jesus. The belief that Christians could be teleported to heaven in the twinkle of an eye traumatized many young people at the time, she says. 'I had friends who would literally wake up in the middle of the night. And if their house was really quiet they would get very frightened and they'd sneak into their parents' bedroom to make sure their parents were still in their house,' she says. Most mainstream biblical scholars say the word 'rapture' does not appear in most translations of the Bible or the Book of Revelation. Many mainstream Biblical scholars say the Book of Revelation does not depict the literal end of the world: It's an anti-Roman tract that used coded language to tell Christians that God would destroy Rome's evil empire. Bass calls belief in the Rapture a 'completely invented theology' and 'one of the most wildly successful heresies in the history of Christianity.' A belief system that says God will end the world through violence offers no incentive for a political or religious leader to avoid war — or backtrack when events spiral out of control, she says. 'In the framework of this 'end times' theology, destruction is always a sign that God is working and is about to return,' Bass says. 'In this theology, the worse things become, the closer it is to the end. There is no motivation to do good, care for the poor, make sure that wars don't happen, and care for the planet.' Apocalyptic visions about the end of the world are common in many religions. And it's not unusual for a political leader to invoke God before going to war. But when citizens in a democracy believe political leaders are divinely appointed and driven by prophecies, it leaves no room for debate, Tisby says. 'There's a sort of fundamentalism to it all,' he says. 'It's unbending, unchanging and it can't be critiqued because its divine. Who are we to question? 'Any uncritical, unyielding support of a political actor, no matter what the conflict, is dangerous,' he says. If this is part of the dynamic that guides the US' future actions in the Middle East, it could lead to another final question. Many critics of Iran say it is a theocracy led by someone who reduces the world to a clash between good and evil and whose foreign policy is driven by apocalyptic religious myths. What if America's clash with Iran is driven in part by some of the same religious forces? John Blake is a CNN senior writer and author of the award-winning memoir, 'More Than I Imagined: What a Black Man Discovered About the White Mother He Never Knew.'


CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Prophecy, not politics, may also shape America's clash with Iran
When most people contemplate the future of America's conflict with Iran, they hunt for clues in grainy satellite photos, statements from military analysts and President Trump's social media posts. But when scholar Diana Butler Bass considers what could happen next, her thoughts turn toward another group she says is now thinking more about prophecy than politics. She recalls warnings from her childhood about the rise of an Antichrist, stories about weeping mothers clutching their empty blankets after their babies were suddenly 'Raptured' to heaven and paintings of an angry Jesus leading armies of angels to an Armageddon-like, final battle in modern-day Israel. Those stories terrified and thrilled Bass when she heard them growing up in a White evangelical church in the 1970s. It was a time when the end always seemed near, and books like the bestseller 'The Late Great Planet Earth' warned Christians to gird their loins for a period of Great Tribulation and prepare for Jesus' triumphant return to Jerusalem. Bass, a prominent, progressive religious author who hosts a popular Substack newsletter called 'The Cottage,' no longer believes those stories. Yet when she considers why the US struck three nuclear facilities in Iran this month and what could happen next, she now offers a prophecy of her own: Bombing Iran will reinforce Trump's status as God's 'Chosen One' and Israel as His chosen nation among many of the President's White evangelical supporters. Many of these supporters dismiss the dangers of a larger war, she tells CNN, because such a clash would mean the world is approaching the 'end times' — a series of cataclysmic events ushering in the Second Coming of Christ and the rise of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. 'There's almost a kind of spiritual eagerness for a war in the Middle East,' says Bass, describing attitudes among some White evangelicals. 'They believe a war is going to set off a series of events that will result in Jesus returning.' Trump's decision to bomb Iran has so far been examined almost exclusively through the lens of politics or military strategy. Yet there is a religious dimension to his decision – and what could happen next – that's been underexplored. America's approach to Iran and Israel may not just be driven by sober assessment of geopolitics. Bass and other religious scholars say US policy in the Middle East is also influenced by the controversial teachings of a pugnacious 19th century Anglo-Irish clergyman and a series of lurid, 'Left Behind' doomsday Christian books and films. This is dangerous, says Jemar Tisby, a historian and best-selling author of 'Stories of the Spirit of Justice.' 'Trump's action underscores how these theological beliefs are not abstract; they have direct, dangerous, and deadly consequences,' Tisby wrote recently in his 'Footnotes' newsletter. He elaborated in an interview this week with CNN, saying that that apocalyptic visions from the Bible should not influence America's policy in Israel or Iran in any way. 'You layer on this prophecy about the rise of Israel and now all of a sudden you have this very literalistic interpretation of the Bible informing US foreign policy,' he says. White evangelicals who see America's conflict with Iran as primarily a spiritual battle instead of a political one tend to be motivated by several beliefs. One belief is that Trump is God's 'chosen one,' saved from assassination last year to do God's work and protect Israel. He is, to borrow from the parlance of evangelical subculture, called 'for such a time as this.' This belief is reflected in a text message to Trump from Mike Huckabee, the prominent evangelical and former Arkansas governor who was appointed by Trump to be US ambassador to Israel. In the text, which was shared by Trump, Huckabee alluded to the two assassination attempts Trump survived last year in saying that God spared him 'to be the most consequential President in a century—maybe ever.' He added, 'I trust your instincts,' because 'I believe you hear from heaven,' and that 'You did not seek this moment. This moment sought YOU!' Huckabee's ambassadorship to Israel is not surprising. Many White evangelicals believe the church is obligated by the Bible to provide unwavering support to Israel. They view the ancient Israel described in the Bible as the same as the modern nation-state of Israel, which was created in 1948. Trump reinforced this view during his first term when he broke from decades of American policy to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The move thrilled many White evangelical leaders, two of whom attended a ceremony marking the occasion. There is a long history of White evangelical leaders urging American presidents and politicians to treat Israel as a divinely favored nation. Many White evangelicals believe Israel's existence is a fulfillment of biblical prophecies that would usher in Jesus' return. Some cite a scripture from Genesis 12:3, which recounts God saying, 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you, I will curse.' That passage depicts God addressing Abraham, the Jewish patriarch and 'father of all nations.' But some White evangelicals say that passage also refers to Israel — both then and now. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz alluded to that scripture when he defended his support of Israel's war with Iran in a recent interview. 'Growing up in Sunday School, I was taught from the Bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed,' he said. Other evangelical leaders have made similar claims. Pastor John Hagee, a prominent evangelical leader, has said that supporting Israel is not a political issue — it's a biblical one. Hagee is the founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, which boasts 10 million members and bills itself as the largest pro-Israel organization in the US. 'It is not possible to say, 'I believe in the Bible' and not support Israel and the Jewish people,' he once declared. Trump won the support of about 8 out of 10 White evangelical Christian voters in the 2024 presidential election. And in a CNN poll after the airstrikes on Iran, 87% of Republicans said they trust Trump to make the right decisions about US' use of force against the country. Franklin Graham, son of the late evangelical leader Billy Graham, said on X after the bombing of Iran 'that the world is in a much safer place.' The Rev. Robert Jeffress, a prominent evangelical leader, suggested last week that opposition to Israel is rebellion against God. While delivering a Sunday sermon praising Trump's decision, Jeffress sermon was interrupted by applause and a standing ovation from his congregation. 'Those who oppose Israel are always on the wrong side of history, and most importantly, they are on the wrong side of God,' Jeffress said. 'And I thank God we finally have a president who understands that truth in Donald Trump.' Such unconditional support of Israel might make spiritual sense to evangelicals. But some scholars say it's a risky stance for a multiracial and multireligious democracy like the US to take. Americans' support for Israel had dropped to historic lows before the US' use of force in Iran. Tisby, the religious historian, tells CNN that the Israel depicted in the Bible is not the same as the modern-day country. 'If you conflate the two, you end up supporting all kinds of actions that hurt people in the name of politics,' Tisby says. 'It leads to the reluctance to recognize the rights of Palestinians. It blinds us to the human rights and justice issues that are at stake in the Middle East.' Tisby and other religion scholars say America's bombing of Iran is also influenced by another source: a form of Christianity pioneered in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish pastor. Darby looked at certain passages in the Bibe's book of Revelations and devised the concept of 'dispensationalism.' It divides history into distinct 'dispensations,' or periods through which God interacts with humanity differently. Many adherents to this tradition believe in a fiery apocalypse and the 'Rapture' — a moment when Christians are suddenly lifted to heaven before a period of tribulation on Earth. Darby's views were amplified a century later by the popular 'Left Behind' novels and films of the 1990s and 2000s, which reached millions of evangelicals with apocalyptic visions of the end times. The book series, inspired by Rapture theology and gory scenes in the Book of Revelation, has sold more than 65 million copies. The 'Left Behind' books were marketed as fiction, but they were treated as biblical truth by many evangelicals. Views of dispensationalism were taught in many evangelical churches, youth camps and Sunday schools, bringing them into the mainstream. Central to dispensationalism is the role of Israel in the last days. Its adherents believe that the establishment of the modern state of Israel marks the beginning of the end times — heralding the Second Coming of Christ. Israel's geopolitical success and security are seen as necessary preconditions for Christ's return, Tisby says. Dispensationalism has permeated White evangelical culture so much that many evangelicals today have adopted its tenets without being familiar with the term, Tisby says. 'Just because you don't have the name doesn't mean you're not actually adhering to the beliefs,' he says. 'It's so common now that it doesn't need to be named anymore.' Prophecies about angelic armies battling demonic armies in an apocalyptic Middle East sound implausible to many, but such beliefs gripped many of the White evangelical pastors and families she grew up with, says Bass, author of 'Freeing Jesus.' She recalls evangelical pastors preaching that whenever Israel gained more territory, it was God's will. Some pastors condemned Iran as evil. Jews, they said, would finally accept Jesus as their savior. But Jesus' return would be preceded by a series of cataclysmic events like the sudden disappearance of God's faithful and those 'left behind' — the non-believers who didn't accept Jesus. The belief that Christians could be teleported to heaven in the twinkle of an eye traumatized many young people at the time, she says. 'I had friends who would literally wake up in the middle of the night. And if their house was really quiet they would get very frightened and they'd sneak into their parents' bedroom to make sure their parents were still in their house,' she says. Most mainstream biblical scholars say the word 'rapture' does not appear in most translations of the Bible or the Book of Revelation. Many mainstream Biblical scholars say the Book of Revelation does not depict the literal end of the world: It's an anti-Roman tract that used coded language to tell Christians that God would destroy Rome's evil empire. Bass calls belief in the Rapture a 'completely invented theology' and 'one of the most wildly successful heresies in the history of Christianity.' A belief system that says God will end the world through violence offers no incentive for a political or religious leader to avoid war — or backtrack when events spiral out of control, she says. 'In the framework of this 'end times' theology, destruction is always a sign that God is working and is about to return,' Bass says. 'In this theology, the worse things become, the closer it is to the end. There is no motivation to do good, care for the poor, make sure that wars don't happen, and care for the planet.' Apocalyptic visions about the end of the world are common in many religions. And it's not unusual for a political leader to invoke God before going to war. But when citizens in a democracy believe political leaders are divinely appointed and driven by prophecies, it leaves no room for debate, Tisby says. 'There's a sort of fundamentalism to it all,' he says. 'It's unbending, unchanging and it can't be critiqued because its divine. Who are we to question? 'Any uncritical, unyielding support of a political actor, no matter what the conflict, is dangerous,' he says. If this is part of the dynamic that guides the US' future actions in the Middle East, it could lead to another final question. Many critics of Iran say it is a theocracy led by someone who reduces the world to a clash between good and evil and whose foreign policy is driven by apocalyptic religious myths. What if America's clash with Iran is driven in part by some of the same religious forces? John Blake is a CNN senior writer and author of the award-winning memoir, 'More Than I Imagined: What a Black Man Discovered About the White Mother He Never Knew.'