Long before Samuel Huntington gave it academic legitimacy, Israel began promoting the notion of a “clash of civilizations” as a strategic tool in the post-Cold War era. The purpose was clear: to position Israel as the vanguard of “Judeo-Christian civilization” under siege, thereby justifying its continued exploitation of U.S. power and resources. This ideological framing, packaged later by Huntington as a cultural theory, was in fact a geopolitical instrument aimed at sustaining American military and diplomatic support for Israel’s regional ambitions.

This framework is no longer theoretical. Israel has actively applied the “clash of civilizations” logic in its wars against Hamas in Gaza and, more recently, in its attacks on Iran. These conflicts have been deliberately cast as religious battles—between “the children of light and the children of darkness”, a binary drawn from biblical scripture and deployed to resonate with American religious and political narratives. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s references to the Old Testament, Reinhold Niebuhr’s Children of Light and Children of Darkness, and civilizational rhetoric are calculated efforts to mobilize U.S. public opinion, political elites, and media in defense of Israel’s militarized policies.

The civilisational narrative

This civilizational narrative has been aggressively promoted across American policymaking circles, social media ecosystems, and religious institutions. It has shaped the way Israel’s actions in Gaza and toward Iran are framed, not as violations of international law or human rights, but as righteous wars of defense for Western civilization. In doing so, Israel has effectively turned American support into a religious and cultural allegiance rather than a strategic alliance, hollowing out the international legal system in the process.

Nowhere is the danger of this more evident than in Israel’s ongoing hostility toward Iran. Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, combined with its repeated threats and recent attacks, has forced Iran to reassess its strategic posture. In this context, Iran’s appreciation of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent has grown. Despite complex regional dynamics, Tehran increasingly views Islamabad’s nuclear stance as a stabilizing force that signals to Israel and its backers that unchecked aggression carries real risks.

Time for collective narrative

In the face of a collapsing international order, paralyzed by UN Security Council gridlock and Western double standards, it is time for Muslim-majority nations to consider a collective alternative. For many small and medium-sized states in the Islamic world, conventional deterrence is insufficient. Drawing from realist theory, particularly Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism, a nuclear deterrence framework led by Pakistan emerges as not only a rational option but a necessary one.

A Pakistan-led Muslim nuclear security initiative would not be aimed at proliferation or escalation. Rather, it could serve as a stabilizing force, supporting the existing international order through multilateral cooperation. With Pakistan’s technical capacity and strategic positioning, this framework could provide a nuclear umbrella for countries under direct threat, such as Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Gulf states, and Southeast Asian nations like Malaysia and Indonesia.

Such an initiative, guided by neoliberal institutionalism, would include shared protocols, joint inspections, and cooperation with international bodies like the IAEA. Drawing from constructivist theory, it could also foster a shared sense of purpose and identity among Muslim nations, one rooted not in confrontation, but in mutual assurance, stability, and a commitment to regional peace.

New security architecture

Crucially, this framework should not be seen as antagonistic to global norms. Rather, it should be developed in consultation with other key stakeholders, especially China and its Global Security Initiative, to ensure it aligns with broader efforts to preserve international law, sovereignty, and the rule-based order.

To move forward, this proposal must become a subject of public, diplomatic, and scholarly dialogue. Intellectuals, policymakers, and civil society leaders across the Muslim world, and beyond, must begin serious discussions about collective nuclear security as a means of ensuring survival, dignity, and peace in an increasingly polarized and unstable world.

The time has come to reject the mythology of civilizational war. It is time to reclaim the principles of sovereignty, multilateralism, and international cooperation. And it is time to imagine and construct a new security architecture for the Muslim world, one that deters aggression, reinforces legal norms, and safeguards the global order from the ideologues of religious war.

(The author is an Associate Professor of History at Frostburg State University, US and President of the Zhenghe Forum, which promotes cultural dialogue in the Indo-Pacific region. His work has appeared in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and other leading publications. Views are personal and not necessarily shared by editors of South Asia Monitor. He can be contacted at khurampk@gmail.com)