(Blog) Can You Destroy Theology With Missiles? - Ep. 958 - August 10, 2026

Can Missiles Defeat Iran's End-Times Theology?

Military power can destroy weapons, infrastructure, and supply lines. It cannot automatically change the beliefs that tell leaders suffering, sacrifice, and conflict are signs of religious victory.

In this episode of The Smith and Rowland Show, Jeff Rowland and Alan Smith argue that Iran's end-times theology must be part of any serious discussion about its military decisions, its response to sanctions, and its willingness to continue a conflict. Their central concern is that conventional pressure may fail when a ruling system interprets hardship as evidence that prophecy is unfolding.

Theology Changes How a Nation Understands War

Wars are often explained through military capability, economic strength, diplomacy, and political ambition. Those factors matter. However, Rowland and Smith argue that Iran cannot be understood through those categories alone.

The episode returns repeatedly to a question that many military and political discussions leave unanswered: What happens when a government believes it is participating in a divinely ordered sequence of end-times events?

"Nations do not simply fight with weapons. They fight with worldviews."

According to the hosts, Iran's leaders may not view military losses, financial restrictions, or international isolation in the same way Western officials do. A strategy meant to force negotiation can have the opposite effect if the other side sees suffering as part of its religious mission.

This does not mean military facts are irrelevant. The hosts discuss reports of serious damage to Iran's military resources, including its air force, navy, missile capacity, economy, and access to money. Yet they argue that physical losses do not necessarily defeat an ideology.

A missile can strike a military target. It cannot strike a conviction held in the mind of a leader, a soldier, or a population.

Iran's Twelver Shiite Expectation of the Mahdi

Iran is the world's largest Shiite Islamic power, and its government draws heavily from Twelver Shiite theology. In the framework discussed on the show, this theology centers on the expected return of the twelfth imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, commonly called the Mahdi.

Twelver Shiites believe the twelfth imam did not die in the ordinary sense. Instead, he entered a hidden state more than a thousand years ago and will return at a future time to establish justice in the world.

Rowland and Smith focus on the end-times expectations connected to that belief. As they describe it, the Mahdi's return follows a period marked by large-scale chaos, bloodshed, injustice, and oppression.

Why chaos can be seen as religious progress

For people who hold this expectation, the hosts argue that disorder may carry a different meaning. Conflict does not always appear as failure. It may appear as preparation.

The episode presents the connection this way:

• Chaos may be interpreted as a sign that prophecy is advancing.
• Suffering may be viewed as preparation for the Mahdi's return.
• Escalating conflict may be embraced rather than avoided.
• Military setbacks may reinforce religious resolve instead of weakening it.

That belief system changes the normal assumptions behind deterrence. A nation that values survival, stability, and economic recovery may seek peace after severe losses. A leadership structure that sees suffering as proof of a prophetic timeline may respond differently.

If hardship is treated as evidence that prophecy is unfolding, pressure may strengthen resolve instead of producing compromise.

The Revolutionary Guard and Religious Power

The episode connects this end-times expectation to Iran's governing institutions, especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Quds Force. Rowland and Smith cite the view that Iranian officials have described the Revolutionary Guard as an instrument for "preparing the way" for the imam.

That language matters because "prepare the way" is not merely ceremonial language in the hosts' view. They believe it reveals an ideology that connects military action, sacrifice, martyrdom, and national conflict to a religious mission.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iranian leaders have often framed opposition to the United States and Israel as part of a wider spiritual struggle. Rowland and Smith argue that references to sacrifice, martyrdom, and the coming Mahdi should be understood as more than political slogans.

The hosts also point to the spread of these ideas through social media and religious networks across the Muslim world. They do not claim that every Muslim shares the same view. Instead, they focus on the influence of these beliefs within Iran's ruling structure and among people who hold radical end-times convictions.

A belief system cannot be bombed

Rowland puts the point plainly: "You're not going to defeat a theology with a bomb."

His argument is not that military force has no effect. Air campaigns can damage equipment, eliminate missile sites, and restrict a government's ability to project force. Naval blockades and financial restrictions can create severe pressure.

However, those measures do not remove the ideas that shape a regime's long-term purpose. The hosts compare ideology to a target that cannot be seen on a radar screen. A military can identify a weapons depot. It cannot locate and destroy a theological conviction with the same tools.

Why Sanctions and Losses May Not Bring Negotiations

The discussion raises concern about strategies that assume Iran will negotiate once the cost of conflict becomes high enough. Rowland and Smith acknowledge the apparent force of military pressure. They reference damage to Iran's military infrastructure, restrictions on its finances, and a collapsing economy that has harmed ordinary citizens.

Still, they question whether those developments will produce the expected outcome.

If Iran's rulers believe they are helping create worldwide confusion before the Mahdi's appearance, then disorder may appear to them as success. In that framework, economic pain and military defeat do not necessarily disprove their beliefs. They can be interpreted as confirmation.

The hosts say this may help explain why Iran has endured sanctions, military losses, and economic hardship without abandoning some long-term objectives. They also argue that proposed agreements may seem unattractive to a regime that believes its current condition serves a prophetic purpose.

The limits of a deal-based approach

The episode uses the phrase "art of the deal" to describe the problem. Negotiation assumes both sides want an arrangement that improves their material condition. That assumption weakens when one side believes suffering has religious value.

Rowland and Smith do not dismiss diplomacy outright. Their point is that diplomacy cannot ignore theology. A deal may offer economic relief, rebuilding, or access to frozen assets. Yet those incentives may carry less weight if the leadership sees conflict as a path toward a promised religious climax.

The hosts also worry about the durability of any policy. One U.S. administration may apply pressure and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but a future administration could reverse course.

They mention midterm elections, changes in Congress, future presidents, negotiations, and the possibility of releasing Iranian assets. Their concern is that temporary pressure cannot create lasting change if the institutions and worldview behind the policy remain in place.

The Hosts' Argument for Removing the Regime's Power Structure

Rowland argues that lasting political change in Iran would require more than airstrikes, sanctions, or a blockade. He says the leadership of the Revolutionary Guard would have to be removed and disarmed before Persian people could freely take control of their government.

This is a forceful and controversial proposal. The hosts describe it as a potential natural, political solution, not as a guaranteed outcome. They acknowledge the human cost and difficulty of military action inside Iran.

According to Rowland, a sustained ground operation would need to focus on dismantling the Revolutionary Guard's authority rather than merely damaging military equipment. He believes Iranian citizens cannot easily rise against the ruling system because the Revolutionary Guard has shown a willingness to imprison, execute, and violently suppress its own people.

Smith agrees that an air campaign and naval blockade alone may not accomplish the stated mission. Yet both hosts recognize that any ground operation would carry serious risks and would depend on support from Persian citizens.

Their broader point remains consistent: physical pressure can reduce a regime's capacity, but it may not remove the theology guiding that regime.

The Christian Hope and the Islamic Expectation

A major part of the conversation is theological rather than geopolitical. Rowland and Smith contrast the Islamic expectation of the Mahdi with the Christian hope of Jesus Christ's return.

The hosts identify the Mahdi with the biblical Antichrist. That is their Christian interpretation, and they stress that Christians are not instructed to fix their attention on the Antichrist. Instead, they say believers should look for Christ.

They describe the rapture as the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our Lord. In their view, Christ's return is the focus of Christian expectation, not fear of the figure they associate with the Mahdi.

The two frameworks are sharply different in the way the hosts present them:

Rowland and Smith also draw a contrast around the phrase "prepare the way." In the Christian faith, John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus through proclamation and repentance. In the framework they attribute to Iran's religious leadership, preparation for the Mahdi involves conflict, sacrifice, and the expectation of bloodshed.

Spiritual Deception and Extreme Commitment

Smith asks how people can show such intense commitment to a religious cause without the Holy Spirit. He distinguishes between people who are deceived and people who have become delusional.

The hosts do not treat ordinary Muslim faith as identical to radical ideology. Their concern is with people who have accepted a belief system so fully that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives, harm others, or accept the suffering of their own citizens.

Rowland argues that this degree of commitment cannot be explained by human determination alone. He sees it as a spiritual issue and says people caught in such deception need more than political arguments.

In the hosts' view, the message of the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ must be proclaimed with spiritual power. They believe the gospel can free people from beliefs that draw them toward death and destruction.

The hosts believe spiritual deception must be met with the truth of the gospel.

Hope for the Persian People

Although the episode speaks plainly about Iran's ruling regime, it also makes a distinction between that regime and the Persian people. Rowland and Smith express hope that many Iranians reject the oppression of the Revolutionary Guard and long for freedom.

The hosts reference a report discussed in the episode that claimed up to 1,200 people per month were coming to Christ in Iran as of August 2025. The number is presented as a report cited during the program, not as an independently verified figure.

That report supports the hosts' belief that a spiritual awakening may already be underway among Persian people. They argue that lasting change could come through transformed hearts, not only through military or political change.

A call to put Scripture in Iranian hands

Rowland proposes that the United States should distribute copies of the Bible throughout Iran. He compares the idea to biblical accounts of Gideon's army breaking lamps and Israel marching around Jericho.

His argument is spiritual: if theology drives the conflict, then the Word of God must be part of the response. He believes Persian people need access to the gospel and the story of Jesus Christ.

The hosts do not deny the role of governments or militaries. However, they argue that political and military efforts alone cannot bring the deepest kind of freedom. They place their hope in revival, gospel witness, and the work of the Holy Spirit among people living under religious oppression.

A Wider Conflict of Ideas

Rowland and Smith describe the conflict as larger than a regional dispute between Iran, the United States, and Israel. They mention China and the spread of global unrest, arguing that Iran may see broader international confusion as evidence that its end-times expectations are advancing.

The episode also turns briefly to the United States. The hosts compare what they see as religious deception in Iran with cultural deception in America, including debates about sex and gender.

Their point is that every nation acts according to beliefs about truth, identity, morality, and authority. Iran's governing ideology is religious and political. America's cultural disputes take different forms. Yet, in both cases, the hosts argue that beliefs shape public life.

They also discuss Muslim political participation in Michigan and Dearborn's large Muslim population. Rowland claims that Islamic forms of authority influence parts of the city. He also acknowledges that Sharia courts have no formal legal standing under U.S. law.

These comments are presented as the hosts' concerns about cultural and religious influence in America. The episode uses them to argue that theology affects local communities as well as international conflict.

Christians Need to Know What They Believe

Smith brings the conversation back to Christian listeners with a direct question: "What is your theology?"

He worries that many Christians cannot clearly explain what they believe about biblical prophecy, the rapture, the millennium, the return of Christ, or God's purpose for the nations. In his view, that lack of clarity matters when religious ideas shape international events.

The hosts mention premillennialism, postmillennialism, and dispensationalism. They believe these theological positions affect how Christians understand government, war, prophecy, and prayer.

Their warning is not to become consumed with speculation about the Antichrist or world events. Instead, they call believers to keep Jesus Christ at the center of their hope.

A clear Christian response, as described in the episode, includes:

• Praying for Iranian citizens who live under oppression and economic hardship.
• Asking God to bring freedom and spiritual awakening among Persian people.
• Praying for wisdom for government leaders facing military and diplomatic decisions.
• Seeking discernment about deception, prophecy, and religious ideology.
• Proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ as a message of peace and salvation.

The Question Behind the Missiles

The episode's central question remains difficult because it addresses more than military strength. Missiles can destroy launch sites. Sanctions can restrict finances. A blockade can limit trade. None of those actions, by themselves, can remove a theology that treats chaos and loss as signs of religious purpose.

Rowland and Smith argue that Iran's end-times expectations must be taken seriously because beliefs shape behavior. Their Christian response centers on prayer, the gospel, hope for the Persian people, and confidence in Christ's return.

For believers, the blessed hope is not the outcome of any military campaign. It is the return of Jesus Christ.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Can You Destroy Theology With Missiles? - Ep. 958 - August 10, 2026"