Seven months into a war that began in February, House Speaker Mike Johnson stood before cameras to defend a conflict that a majority of Americans now oppose, invoking religion to explain why Iran cannot be trusted at the negotiating table — a claim that contradicts both Islamic doctrine and the assessments of US intelligence agencies. The war, launched alongside Israel on the premise of nuclear threat, has shuttered the Strait of Hormuz, driven up energy prices, and left the administration searching for allies who have yet to arrive. In moments like these, history reminds us that the stories n
House Speaker Johnson claims lying is part of Iranian religion while defending Iran war
Lying is strictly forbidden in Islam.
Mark
Why does Johnson's comment about lying and religion matter? Isn't he just making a political point about Iran's negotiating behavior?
Mimi
The framing matters because it moves a political argument into religious territory. He's not saying Iran broke a specific agreement—he's saying dishonesty is baked into their faith. That's a different kind of claim, and it's factually wrong.
Luke
But we should be careful here. Johnson may have been speaking loosely, conflating state behavior with theology. The real question is whether Iran has actually violated agreements. Has it?
Mimi
That's fair. The source doesn't detail specific Iranian violations. What it does show is that US intelligence said Iran wasn't weaponizing its program, yet the US bombed anyway.
Mark
So the nuclear threat justification—the reason given for the war—was contradicted by US intelligence before the war even started?
Luke
Gabbard said that in June 2025. The bombing happened June 22. So yes, within days. But we should note: Gabbard was Trump's intelligence chief, so she wasn't independent. And the source doesn't explain why Trump chose to bomb if his own intelligence said there was no active weapons program.
Mimi
That's the real gap. The stated reason for the war doesn't align with what US intelligence was saying. Johnson is defending the war anyway, by attacking Iranian credibility rather than defending the intelligence.
Mark
And the public doesn't support it.
Luke
Fifty-four percent disapprove. That's significant, but it's not overwhelming. Forty-six percent either approve or are unsure. Still, it's unpopular enough to matter politically.
Mimi
The energy costs are probably driving that. People feel it at the gas pump. Inflation is real.
Mark
Johnson says allies will help reopen the strait. Has anyone committed?
Luke
The source says they've refused so far. So Johnson is betting on something that hasn't happened.
Il Polso
- A sitting House Speaker publicly claimed that lying is embedded in Iranian religious doctrine — a statement Islamic scholars and US intelligence officials would both dispute — revealing how far the administration is willing to stretch its justifications for an unpopular war.
- Fifty-four percent of Americans now disapprove of military action against Iran, and the conflict is threatening Republican control of both chambers heading into November's midterms.
- The war's most immediate consequence for ordinary Americans is economic: Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz sent oil and gas prices surging, feeding inflation that consumers feel every time they fill their tanks.
- The US intelligence community assessed as recently as last year that Iran was not weaponizing its nuclear program — yet the administration bombed Iran's enrichment facilities in June 2025 and escalated into full conflict by February, leaving the original justification visibly strained.
- Johnson is counting on NATO allies and Arab states to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but none have committed to involvement, leaving the US increasingly isolated in a conflict with no diplomatic exit in sight.
Seven months into a war that began in February, House Speaker Mike Johnson stood before cameras to defend a conflict that a majority of Americans now oppose, invoking religion to explain why Iran cannot be trusted at the negotiating table — a claim that contradicts both Islamic doctrine and the assessments of US intelligence agencies. The war, launched alongside Israel on the premise of nuclear threat, has shuttered the Strait of Hormuz, driven up energy prices, and left the administration searching for allies who have yet to arrive. In moments like these, history reminds us that the stories nations tell to justify force often outlast the facts that were meant to support them.
House Speaker Mike Johnson appeared before reporters Tuesday to defend the seven-month-old US-Israel war against Iran, offering a striking claim along the way: that Iranians cannot be trusted in negotiations because dishonesty is part of their religion. Islamic doctrine explicitly forbids lying, and Johnson's office offered no clarification. What he seemed to be arguing — that Iran negotiates in bad faith — is a political claim, but by casting it in religious terms, he moved the conversation away from the verifiable and into the murky.
The war, which began in February after a US military strike on Iran's enrichment facilities in June 2025, was sold to the public on the premise that Iran was close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. That premise has been complicated by the US government's own intelligence community, which assessed that Iran was not weaponizing its nuclear program and that Supreme Leader Khamenei had not authorized a weapons effort. The administration struck anyway, and Trump declared Iran's nuclear capability 'obliterated.'
At home, the conflict has grown deeply unpopular. A new poll found 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the military action, and the political fallout is expected to damage Republican prospects in November's midterms. The economic toll has sharpened public frustration: Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz sent energy prices soaring, and American consumers are still paying elevated costs at the pump, with ripple effects across the broader economy.
Johnson's answer to the strait crisis was to suggest that NATO allies and Arab states — who he argued have more at stake in keeping commerce flowing — should take on the burden of stabilizing it. None have agreed to do so. The gap between Johnson's expressed confidence and the reality of US isolation captures something essential about where this conflict now stands: seven months in, with no allies stepping forward, no diplomatic path visible, and no end in sight.
House Speaker Mike Johnson stood before reporters on Tuesday and offered a sweeping characterization of Iranian negotiators: they cannot be trusted, he said, because lying is woven into their religion. It was a claim he made while defending President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel in launching a war against Iran in February—a conflict now seven months old and showing no signs of conclusion.
Johnson's remark about Iranian dishonesty and religious doctrine was striking enough to warrant immediate scrutiny. Islamic teaching explicitly forbids lying. The speaker's office did not respond to requests for clarification on the statement. What Johnson appeared to be describing—the idea that Iranians would negotiate in bad faith—is a political argument about state behavior, not a theological one. By framing it as a matter of faith, he moved the conversation away from verifiable claims about Iranian actions and into territory where facts become harder to pin down.
The war itself has become increasingly unpopular at home. A University of Massachusetts poll released Monday found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of military action against Iran. The conflict is expected to weigh heavily on Republicans' chances of holding the House and Senate in November's midterm elections. Yet Johnson pressed forward with the administration's core justification: that the war was necessary because Iran was on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon.
That argument, however, has been undermined by statements from within the US government itself. In June of last year, Trump's then-intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard told lawmakers that the intelligence community continued to assess Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, and that Supreme Leader Khamenei had not authorized the nuclear weapons program he had suspended in 2023. Within days of those remarks, on June 22, 2025, the US military bombed Iran's three main enrichment facilities—an attack Trump said had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capability. The US and Israel struck again in late February, escalating the conflict into what Trump had promised would be a six-week operation.
The war has reshaped global energy markets. Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz in response to the initial strikes, sending oil and gas prices soaring both domestically and worldwide. US officials have since claimed success in loosening Tehran's grip on the waterway and moving millions of barrels of oil through daily. Yet American consumers continue to pay elevated prices at the pump. The increased energy costs have fueled broader inflation across the US economy, a fact that has not escaped public notice or political consequence.
Johnson's response to this reality was to suggest that the burden of stabilizing the strait should fall on others. NATO allies and Arab states in the region, he argued, have a greater stake in keeping commerce flowing than Americans do, and he expressed confidence they would step in to assist. So far, these nations have declined to do so. Johnson's expectation appears to rest on hope rather than commitment, a gap that underscores the isolation the US has faced in prosecuting this conflict. The war entered its seventh month last week with no diplomatic off-ramp visible and no clear endpoint in sight.
Citazioni salienti
The Iranians simply cannot be trusted. They'll sit at a negotiation table and say something. They'll walk away and do the opposite.— House Speaker Mike Johnson
The intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2023.— Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's then-intelligence chief, in June 2025
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su aljazeera.com ↗
Politics & Governance