Mahmood Mamdani has argued that the religious wars of early modern Europe were often predicated on what he calls "protective" invasions: the majority in one polity looked across its borders and saw that, in a neighboring polity, its co-religionists formed a persecuted minority. The defense of these brethren became a justification—or at least a pretext—for war. In recent years, postliberal and postdemocratic tendencies within parts of the Western right, particularly in the United States, have been accompanied by a renewed political mobilization of Christianity. This development raises the possibility that the defense of Christianity against allegedly anti-Christian forces could increasingly serve as a political justification for international intervention, potentially competing with or even replacing the language of human rights and democracy. My talk examines the phenomenon of anti-anti-Christianity in the twentieth century, understood as the political mobilization against perceived anti-Christian threats. Building on this analysis, the paper explores the extent to which a similar logic could be activated in relation to contemporary China, where the issue of religious repression—including restrictions on Christian communities—has occasionally been invoked in Western political discourse. The aim is not to predict a return to confessional wars, but to assess whether religious solidarity and the defense of persecuted believers might once again function as a potential framework for legitimizing geopolitical conflict.