⚡ Sonoran Sunday Sermon: From Genesis to Genocide - Cruz's Bible Verse Can't Justify Bombing 92 Million Iranians, Biblical Israel vs Political Israel
How a viral interview exposed the theological confusion driving America toward Middle East war
Full video available on X-Twitter.
😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾
🌍🤔 Two influential politicos clashed in a heated TV debate 📺 about America's unconditional support for Israel due to ancient scriptures 📜. Senator Ted Cruz claimed a Bible verse mandated this allegiance ✝️, but stumbled when asked to pinpoint the verse or state facts 📉—like the 92 million population of Iran 🇮🇷.
Tucker Carlson posed challenging questions on foreign influence and military expenses 💸, which Cruz struggled to address. This debate foreshadowed yesterday's events: America unleashed massive bombs on Iran 💥, intensifying a perilous conflict driven by religious interpretations and ignorance 🤦.
Mixing age-old religious texts with contemporary politics without proper understanding threatens to spark wars 💣, diverting attention from serious domestic challenges that impact American families 🏠🚨.
🗝️ Takeaways
🔥 Cruz couldn't cite the Bible verse he used to justify war, revealing dangerous theological ignorance
💣 US bombing of Iran yesterday followed the exact escalation pattern the Cruz-Carlson debate predicted
📊 Cruz admitted not knowing Iran's population (92 million) while calling for regime change
⛪ Dispensationalist Christianity conflates ancient Israel with the modern political state, driving foreign policy
💰 Questions about AIPAC's foreign influence became untouchable through anti-Semitism accusations
🗳️ Real costs of military support remain hidden while Americans struggle economically
🏛️ Constitutional war powers bypassed through religious justifications and presidential authority
🌎 Borderlands’ wisdom about complex identities offers an alternative to Washington's simplistic formulas
Sonoran Sunday Sermon: Biblical Israel vs Political Israel - The Cruz-Carlson Clash Reveals America's Dangerous Misunderstanding
As I write this from our tierras sagradas here in the Sonoran borderlands, the smell of creosote still hangs in the morning air. Still, something else fills the horizon—the acrid smoke of American bombs falling on Iranian soil.
Yesterday, President Trump ordered US B-2 bombers to strike three Iranian nuclear facilities using 30,000-pound "bunker buster" bombs, marking America's direct entry into what could become the next endless Middle East war.
¿Y sabes qué?
This escalation didn't happen in a vacuum.
It was predicted, almost prophesied, by a viral confrontation between Tucker Carlson and Senator Ted Cruz that exposed the dangerous theological and political confusions driving American foreign policy.
This isn't just another cable news dustup, hermanos y hermanas—this is about how religious misunderstanding and political ignorance can drag our país into conflicts that serve neither our interests nor our values.
The Bombs Fall: What Happened Yesterday
Let me paint you a picture of what unfolded Saturday night.
According to CNN's reporting, "The US used six B-2 bombers to drop a dozen 'bunker buster' bombs on the Fordow nuclear site in Iran" while "Navy submarines fired 30 TLAM cruise missiles at two other sites, Natanz and Isfahan."
This wasn't some precision strike - this was guerra total, total war.
Trump himself boasted on Truth Social: "We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow."
Órale - a full payload of bombs.
The man talks about dropping explosives on another country like he's describing his golf game.
But here's what really gets me: this represents the first operational use of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bomb so massive that only B-2 bombers can carry it.
We just crossed another line in the militarization of American foreign policy, and most Americans woke up Sunday morning having no idea why.
The Cruz-Carlson Collision: Prophecy and Ignorance
The theological roots of this disaster were laid bare weeks ago in that now-infamous Tucker Carlson interview with Ted Cruz.
As experts analyzed, this wasn't just political theater - it was "a high-profile illustration of the shifting landscape of conservative politics, with Cruz's traditional pro-Israel, biblically-justified interventionism coming under intense scrutiny."
Cruz, representing what scholars call the "dispensationalist evangelical" tradition, made his theological case for endless Middle East intervention:
"As a Christian growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed. And those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of thing."
¿En serio?
Let me get this straight—we're supposed to support military actions based on a Bible verse that Cruz couldn't even locate?
When Carlson pressed him about where this verse appears, Cruz admitted: "I don't remember the scriptural citation." This man is literally advocating for war based on religious texts he hasn't read carefully enough to cite properly.
But it gets worse.
When Carlson asked basic factual questions—the population of Iran, the ethnic composition, the actual costs of our military involvement—Cruz fumbled like a estudiante who didn't study for the exam. "I don't know the population," he admitted about the country he wants to regime-change. When pressed, he guessed wrong, revealing he had no idea that 92 million people live in Iran.
Imagínate Imagine if someone who knew nothing about Mexico's demographics, its complex history, and its indigenous populations started calling for regime change there. We'd rightfully question their competence and their motives. But somehow, when it comes to Iran, such ignorance is acceptable in American politics.
The Great Confusion: Ancient Promises, Modern Wars
Here in the borderlands, we understand the distinction between la tierra sagrada and political territory.
Our abuelitas knew these mountains as holy places long before any government drew lines on maps. We understand that spiritual significance and political control aren't the same thing—a lesson that seems lost on American evangelicals supporting Israeli government policies.
Biblical scholars overwhelmingly distinguish between ancient Israel and the modern state, noting that "Ancient Israel was a theocratic monarchy in covenant with God, a covenant centered on the Torah, the Law of Moses. Modern Israel, while making special provision for Jewish citizenship and drawing on Jewish ideals and values, claims (or at least aims) to be a secular liberal democracy."
The theological tradition Cruz represents—premillennial dispensationalism—teaches that biblical promises to Israel are ongoing and directly applicable to the modern state.
But this represents just one interpretation among many Christian traditions, with many Catholics and mainline Protestants viewing the biblical Israel as fulfilled in Christ and extended to all believers.
Es más complicado, as we say here. It's infinitely more complicated than the Sunday school formulas Cruz offered to justify bombing campaigns.
The AIPAC Question: When Foreign Influence Becomes Untouchable
One of the most revealing moments in the Cruz-Carlson interview came when Carlson pressed Cruz about foreign influence on American politics. When asked about AIPAC's coordination with the Israeli government, Cruz became defensive, eventually resorting to the nuclear option: "You're asking why are the Jews controlling our foreign policy?"
¡Qué manipulación!
This is exactly how important conversations get shut down in American politics. Carlson was asking legitimate questions about foreign government influence—the kind of questions that should be routine in a democracy. But Cruz transformed those questions into accusations of anti-Semitism, making the topic untouchable.
Let me be clear: asking about foreign influence isn't anti-Semitic any more than asking about Chinese influence or Russian influence. As documented extensively, foreign governments routinely attempt to shape American policy, and it's not only appropriate but necessary to examine those mechanisms.
When Cruz admitted that AIPAC raises significant money for his campaigns while claiming they don't coordinate with Israel, Carlson's response was perfectly reasonable: "I'm only trying to get to the question of to what extent is the US government influenced by other governments? And it's a lot."
But notice how Cruz couldn't engage with this substantively. Instead, he relied on deflection and accusations—the tools of someone who knows his position can't withstand scrutiny.
The Human Cost of Theological Politics
Let's talk about what this means for real people.
Yesterday's bombing involved over 125 aircraft and represented what experts call "a major escalation of the conflict" that brought back "memories of the devastation in Iraq following the 2003 US invasion."
Iran's retaliation came swiftly.
Hours after the US strikes, Iran fired around 30 missiles at Israel, with at least 20 people injured and extensive damage reported. The cycle of violence that Cruz's theology helped justify is now spinning beyond anyone's control.
This isn't a video game or a theological seminar.
These are real families—Iranian mothers and fathers, Israeli children, American service members—whose lives hang in the balance. At the same time, our leaders debate biblical verses they don't understand about countries they know nothing about.
From our perspective here in Southern Arizona, where we witness daily the human consequences of failed border policies, the disconnect is staggering. Cruz talks about Iranian threats while people sleep in the streets of American cities. He knows the precise biblical justification for bombing Iran, but doesn't know how many people live there.
What Real America First Would Look Like
¿Sabes qué me molesta más?
What bothers me most is how Cruz claims to represent "America First" politics while advocating for policies that clearly put other countries' interests ahead of our own.
Real America First policy would ask: Does this conflict make Americans safer? Does it strengthen our economy? Does it advance our values? Does it solve problems our own communities face?
Walking through downtown Tucson past homeless encampments and struggling families, it's impossible to argue that spending billions on Middle East conflicts serves our immediate needs. When Carlson pointed out that "people are literally buying groceries on credit in the United States" while we send endless aid abroad, he was speaking for millions of Americans who feel abandoned by their own government.
Cruz's response revealed everything: he couldn't even provide basic cost figures for our military support beyond the $3 billion annual aid package. When asked about the costs of ship deployments, personnel, weapons, and military operations, he admitted: "I don't know the last week. That, I don't have visibility on that."
¡Órale! This man votes to authorize military actions without knowing what they cost? Without understanding their strategic implications? Without even basic knowledge about the countries involved?
Pope Leo condemns US Bombings on Corpus Christi Sunday
In the wake of escalating violence following U.S. airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, Pope Leo XIV has made a profound appeal for peace.
Addressing pilgrims in St. Peter's Square, the Pope emphasized the futility of war and highlighted the imperative for diplomatic solutions over conflict. He poignantly remarked that no military triumph can alleviate the grief and fear caused by violence.
The Holy Father, someone who is well-versed in the Bible and theology, urged nations to channel their efforts toward peace through diplomatic dialogue, echoing the Gospel's call for sharing and unity.
This crisis, affecting not just Iran and Israel but the broader region, underscores the need for humanitarian support and a reaffirmation of human dignity.
The Borderlands Perspective: Complex Identities, Simple Truths
Here in the frontera, we understand something about the complexity of identity and belonging that seems lost in Washington discussions of Israel-Palestine. Our families carry multiple histories—indigenous, Mexican, American—and we know that political boundaries don't always align with cultural or spiritual identities.
Somos más que las líneas en el mapa — we are more than the lines on the map. This perspective could offer wisdom to American discussions of the Middle East, if anyone in Washington were interested in hearing voices from the margins.
But too often, our leaders prefer simple formulas to complex realities. They seek biblical certainty in a world of political ambiguity, as well as theological answers to geopolitical questions.
Cruz's performance revealed the intellectual bankruptcy of this approach.
The Iranian Response: Escalation and Consequences
The immediate consequences of yesterday's bombing campaign are already becoming clear.
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned "in the strongest terms the United States brutal military aggression against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities," warning that "the warmongering and lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences."
Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps promised "regrettable responses" to the US strikes, adding that "the number, dispersion, and size of U.S. military bases in the region are not a strength, but have doubled their vulnerability."
¿Y ahora qué? Now what?
We've started a cycle of escalation that could engulf the entire region, based on theological interpretations that most Christians don't share and strategic thinking that can't withstand basic questioning.
A Personal Reflection: When Certainty Becomes Dangerous
Our elders used to tell stories about the Mexican Revolution, when different armies swept through our region, each claiming divine blessing and historical necessity. Some would say, "Todos decían que Dios estaba de su lado, pero los muertos no resucitaron" - "They all said God was on their side, but the dead didn't rise again."
The theological certainty driving American foreign policy today reminds me of those stories. Leaders invoke God's will to justify policies that create immense human suffering, while remaining ignorant of basic facts about the places they're bombing.
This isn't faithful Christianity or smart politics - it's dangerous fanaticism dressed up in patriotic language.
When Cruz says he wants to be "on the blessing side of things" while advocating for bombing campaigns against countries he knows nothing about, he's not representing biblical wisdom - he's representing the same kind of religious nationalism that has justified violence throughout history.
The Path Forward: Toward Honest Discourse
Yesterday's bombing represents a dangerous escalation driven by the same theological-political confusion the Cruz-Carlson debate exposed.
As foreign policy experts noted, there was "absolutely no evidence" that Iran posed any immediate threat to the US. Yet, we're now directly involved in a conflict that could reshape the Middle East.
Moving forward requires fundamental changes in how we conduct foreign policy:
We need theological honesty - acknowledging that different Christian traditions interpret biblical texts differently, and that no single interpretation should drive policy for everyone.
We need political transparency - making questions about foreign influence discussable without accusations of bigotry shutting down debate.
We need factual competence - requiring leaders making decisions about other countries to demonstrate basic knowledge about those places and people.
Most importantly, we need to prioritize human dignity over political theology, focusing on reducing suffering rather than fulfilling prophetic fantasies.
Hope from the Margins
Despite yesterday's darkness, there's reason for hope.
The Cruz-Carlson debate demonstrated that these conversations are finally taking place in mainstream conservative circles. Americans are beginning to question decades of unexamined assumptions about the Middle East and our role in it.
Desde aquí en la frontera, from here on the border, we've always known that the most important questions often come from the margins, from voices the powerful prefer not to hear. Perhaps it's time for borderlands wisdom—complex, patient, and human-centered— to influence American foreign policy.
La esperanza vive - hope lives, even in dark times. But it requires honesty, humility, and the courage to ask difficult questions, even when powerful people prefer simple answers. It requires connecting our spiritual values to policies that actually reduce suffering rather than increase it.
The bombs have fallen, but the conversation has just begun. This is why we need independent voices and analysis that challenge conventional wisdom and center human dignity over political expedience.
Support Three Sonorans Substack to help us continue bringing you perspectives from the borderlands that challenge conventional wisdom and ask the hard questions Washington won't. Your support helps us maintain editorial independence and keep centering voices from the margins.
¿Qué piensas? What Do You Think?
This moment demands honest conversation about the role of religion in foreign policy and the cost of theological politics. Share your thoughts:
How should the distinction between biblical Israel and the modern state of Israel influence American foreign policy decisions?
What concerns you most about the escalating conflict with Iran, and how do you think Americans should respond to this latest military intervention?
Have a scoop or a story you want us to follow up on? Send us a message!
I have yet to see a major news medium -- digital, electronic, or print -- use "the G-word" to describe the genocide inflicted by Zionists. The pro-Israel interests have also been successful in defining ALL criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitism." This is all the more ironic and remarkable, given the number of REAL anti-Semites within the Trumpista camp.
Ted Cruz, whom Trump himself called "Lyin' Ted," presents something quite different than a mere pro-Israel or pro-Zionist position. Like many twice-born Bible-thumpers (aka southern Evangelists), he believes that Israel must continue to exist, in order to prepare for the Second Coming. What he and they do not explain is that at that time, the Jews will be given one last chance to accept Jesus as their Messiah, after which it will be off to hell for them.
Bottom line: Tucker probably did ONE good thing in exposing Cruz as the ignorant fool he is. However, his reputation has hardly been redeemed. Meanwhile, the Democrats should realize that their knee-jerk, uncompromising, and unprincipled support of genocide cost them hundreds of thousands of votes and almost certainly Michigan and Wisconsin.
One criminally disingenuous man debating another criminally disingenuous man over what is a false premise from inception.
All rendered moot because the real reason it happened is simply one man's overweening ambition, ego, and need to be seen as a tough guy among other tough guys.