Israel In Crosshairs: Prophetic Pressure Building

Israel In Crosshairs: Prophetic Pressure Building

Brandon Holthaus

There is a reason I continually tell people who study Bible prophecy to keep their eyes on Israel. It is not because every conflict involving Israel fulfills a prophecy, nor because we should take every newspaper headline and try to force it into a Bible verse. It is because God has already told us where history is going. When we understand that prophetic framework, we can look at what is happening in the Middle East and recognize when the geopolitical environment begins moving toward the conditions Scripture says will eventually exist.

That is why several developments taking place right now have my attention. Israel is facing pressure from two very different directions. Across the Muslim world, significant military relationships are developing, including a new defense agreement involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. At the same time, Israel is facing increasing diplomatic pressure over Gaza, Hamas, Israeli military withdrawals, Palestinian governance, and ultimately the continuing push for a Palestinian state.

Israel is dealing with growing security concerns from the Islamic world while simultaneously being asked by the international community to make decisions that could affect its ability to defend itself. When these developments are placed alongside Psalm 83, Ezekiel 38–39, Isaiah 28, Joel 3, and Zechariah 12, I believe some important prophetic trends deserve our attention.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan have entered into a new mutual-defense agreement signed in Mecca. What makes this agreement particularly noteworthy is the combined military, economic, religious, and strategic influence represented by these countries.

Turkey possesses one of the region’s most formidable conventional militaries and has developed an increasingly sophisticated defense industry capable of producing drones, missiles, armored vehicles, and other advanced military technology. Saudi Arabia possesses tremendous wealth and considerable influence throughout the Islamic world, especially because of its relationship to Mecca and Medina. Pakistan introduces an entirely different strategic factor because it possesses nuclear weapons.

When a nuclear-armed nation enters a new mutual-defense relationship, its nuclear status cannot simply be ignored when evaluating the potential strategic significance of that relationship.

What happened following the agreement should be especially concerning to Israel. Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif publicly challenged Israel’s legitimacy and called for Muslim countries to unite militarily against the Jewish state. Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated:

“No matter which way you look at it, there is no parameter to continue to bear these people… Israel is not only Turkey’s problem, and it is not only President Erdogan’s problem. These people have become a burden that humanity can no longer bear. The human conscience cannot bear it, political systems cannot sustain it, and economic systems cannot sustain it either. Everyone must step forward, take a diplomatic position, and impose the necessary sanctions on these people.”

Regarding Saudi Arabia, according to Peter Mandaville’s research. The problem with Saudi Arabia is that for more than half a century it has spent billions of dollars funding and sponsoring Islamic religious activities around the world, helping export radical Wahhabism to Muslim communities on almost every continent. Through mosques, Islamic schools, charities, scholarships, universities, religious literature, and organizations, Saudi money helped build an international infrastructure capable of spreading this radical ideology of Islam.

Wahhabism has contributed to religious intolerance of Christianity and Judaism and its ideological relationship to the Salafi-jihadist worldview later associated with groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. Wahhabism and the World: Understanding Saudi Arabia’s Global Influence on Islam.

Wahhabism also includes strong anti-Zionism, antisemitic themes, along with opposition to Western society. These countries view Israel as an enemy around which greater Muslim military cooperation should occur.

Prophetically, my concern isn’t simply what these governments say their agreement is designed to accomplish today. I’m interested in what kind of military relationships are being established across the Islamic world and where those relationships could lead as the Middle East continues to change.

Saudi Arabia presently has important strategic relationships with the United States and has previously explored normalization with Israel. Egypt, which has reportedly been discussed as a possible future participant, has maintained a peace treaty with Israel for decades. Turkey remains a member of NATO. Those realities matter. But the Middle East has repeatedly demonstrated how quickly political relationships can be transformed by war, revolution, regime change, religious movements, changing national interests, or flat-out lying, endorsed by Islamic “Taqiyya” (lying) and “Hudna” (false peace treaties).

For students of Bible prophecy, this is one reason Ezekiel 38 and 39 remain on the front burner. Ezekiel describes a massive military invasion of Israel in the latter days involving a coalition of nations. Persia—modern Iran—is specifically identified. I believe Russia occupies the dominant northern position associated with Gog and Magog, and areas associated with modern Turkey also figure prominently within the coalition.

Ezekiel describes nations such as the ancient area of “Libya” (i.e., the area of Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco) and “Put” (i.e., the area of Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia) separated geographically but ultimately united in an invasion of Israel because of Islamic hatred of Israel.

I am not identifying the agreement signed in Mecca as the Gog-Magog coalition. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan cannot simply be added to Ezekiel’s list just because they appear in today’s headlines. We must allow the biblical text to determine our interpretation rather than altering Scripture to accommodate current events. What interests me is the broader geopolitical movement unfolding around Israel. 

Russia and Iran have developed significant strategic cooperation. Iran remains committed to Israel’s destruction. Turkey’s relationship with Israel has deteriorated considerably. Turkey wants a Neo-Ottoman empire with no Israel.

Military relationships throughout the Muslim world continue to devolve. Now we have a nuclear-armed Muslim nation participating in another regional defense framework while its defense minister openly advocates greater Islamic military unity against Israel. None of that fulfills Ezekiel 38 on its own, but it certainly gives prophecy students something to watch for as the table gets set.

Before Ezekiel’s larger invasion, I believe Scripture also gives us reason to anticipate a conflict involving Israel’s immediate neighborhood. Psalm 83 describes a conspiracy among the Arab peoples surrounding Israel who say, “Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more.” I understand Psalm 83 as describing a regional war distinct from the later Gog-Magog invasion. The peoples identified in Psalm 83 are geographically bordering Israel, and their objective is unmistakable: they want Israel eliminated as a nation.

That same basic objective remains embedded in Hamas’s ideology. This is why the current dispute over Gaza cannot simply be reduced to the location of Israeli troops or the mechanics of another ceasefire. The fundamental question is whether Hamas will cease to exist as an effective military threat. Israel has insisted that it will not make the kind of withdrawal envisioned by the current international roadmap until Hamas is genuinely disarmed.

The disagreement is therefore not merely about whether Hamas should eventually disarm. It is about when disarmament occurs, what qualifies as genuine disarmament, who verifies it, what happens to the weapons, and how much territory Israel relinquishes before the threat has been removed.

This distinction becomes clearer when comparing President Trump’s original framework with the newer Board of Peace roadmap. Trump’s earlier proposal called for military and terrorist infrastructure, including tunnels and weapons-production facilities, to be destroyed and prevented from being rebuilt. Israeli officials have objected that the newer roadmap allows for a gradual process involving the decommissioning and storage of weapons while Israeli forces withdraw in phases.

Under that framework, a new Palestinian governing authority could ultimately control weapons inside Gaza rather than requiring all weapons to be permanently removed from the territory. The new roadmap also connects Gaza’s future with a political process that could lead toward Palestinian statehood, which is not allowed by the Bible.

Israel’s skepticism did not develop in a vacuum. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Instead of producing lasting peace, Hamas eventually seized control and spent years developing an enormous terrorist infrastructure consisting of tunnels, rockets, weapons-production facilities, command centers, and armed fighters. That process ultimately contributed to the environment from which the October 7 massacre was launched. From Israel’s perspective, withdrawing first and depending upon international mechanisms to solve the security problem afterward is a risk it is no longer willing to take.

There are additional questions surrounding what Hamas would consider disarmament. Reports have raised the possibility of an internationally financed program that would pay Palestinians, potentially including Hamas members, to surrender weapons and participate in rehabilitation programs. Yet Hamas’s own history demonstrates why Israel questions whether financial incentives can overcome ideological commitments.

Former Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh acknowledged years ago that Hamas rejected a massive economic-development package because accepting it would have required the organization to dismantle its military infrastructure and surrender its weapons. According to the reporting, the proposed economic package was worth approximately $15 billion and included an airport, seaport, industrial development, and other major investments. Hamas refused those opportunities rather than surrender its military capabilities.

More recent reports cited in the material I reviewed allege that Hamas has distributed rifles to individual operatives as personal weapons. If those reports are accurate, that creates an obvious problem for any disarmament process. An organization could surrender certain categories of weapons while preserving a substantial armed network through weapons held by individual members. October 7 demonstrated that Hamas does not need tanks, fighter aircraft, or a conventional military to inflict devastating casualties. Small arms, grenades, explosives, and lightly armed terrorist units were enough. This is why Israel is insisting that disarmament must mean the actual elimination of Hamas’s ability to wage another war rather than simply reorganizing where its weapons are stored.

More...

The Mask Is Coming Off: The Radical Left's Vision For A World Without Israel

The Mask Is Coming Off: The Radical Left's Vision For A World Without Israel

PNW STAFF

For years, defenders of the increasingly anti-Israel radical Left have insisted that its activists are simply criticizing Israeli government policy. They don't hate Israel, we are told. They only oppose settlements, military operations in Gaza, or American military aid.

But sometimes someone says the quiet part out loud.

Megan Romer, national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, did exactly that during a remarkably revealing interview with New Yorker editor David Remnick.

Asked what the DSA actually wants for Israel and the Palestinians, Romer replied that the organization supports "a free Palestine with the capital in Jerusalem." When Remnick pressed her on whether that meant a two-state solution or a single state replacing Israel, Romer acknowledged that her answer could "be safely read as a one-state solution."

That distinction matters enormously.

This isn't merely a dispute over where Israel's borders should be drawn.

It raises the far more fundamental question of whether the world's only Jewish state should continue to exist at all.

And Romer's comments became even more disturbing when the conversation turned to October 7.

When A Massacre Becomes "Inevitable"

Remnick asked Romer about an anti-Israel rally held in New York on October 8, 2023--the day after Hamas terrorists slaughtered approximately 1,200 people in Israel and abducted more than 200 hostages.

Would she have attended?

"Probably," Romer answered.

When Remnick emphasized that this was just one day after the massacre, Romer responded that October 7 was "largely inevitable," arguing that Palestinians living under Israeli policies could eventually be expected to revolt.

She insisted she was not defending attacks against civilians. But Remnick immediately challenged the contradiction: if you say you would have joined such a rally immediately after the massacre and then explain why the massacre was inevitable, where exactly does explanation end and justification begin?

This is one of the most dangerous transformations taking place in Western attitudes toward Israel.

October 7 is slowly being rewritten.

What began as the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust is increasingly being filtered through the language of "resistance," "decolonization" and "oppression."

The killers become revolutionaries.

The murdered become representatives of an oppressive system.

And Israel's attempt to defend itself becomes the greater crime.

The significance of the interview is that Romer isn't some anonymous activist with a megaphone.

She helps lead the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization enjoying growing electoral success.

Nor is her rhetoric disconnected from DSA's official positions.

On October 7 itself, while Israelis were still being murdered and kidnapped, DSA declared that the day's events were a "direct result" of Israeli policies, while also condemning civilian deaths.

The organization has since gone considerably further. A January 2025 statement called for the establishment of a "democratic secular state, from the river to the sea." In October 2025, DSA affirmed Palestinian "resistance" while demanding an end to American support for Israel.

And in May 2026, an official DSA statement declared its solidarity with efforts to establish a "liberated Palestine, FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA."

Romer merely made the implications harder to ignore.

That might once have been dismissed as campus radicalism.

Not anymore.

DSA itself celebrated Zohran Mamdani's 2025 election as mayor of New York City as the American socialist movement's most significant electoral victory in a century. The organization said thousands of DSA members helped power his campaign and promised to continue supporting socialist candidates throughout the country.

Its own reporting describes major electoral gains in 2026 and the prospect of an expanded socialist bloc in Congress.

That is why Romer's interview matters.

Ideas once confined to protest signs are moving closer to the machinery of government.

The progression is becoming increasingly clear:

First Israel's policies are condemned.

Then Israel is described as an apartheid or colonial state.

Then terrorism against Israelis is explained as inevitable resistance.

Then American support for Israel becomes morally unacceptable.

Finally, the solution becomes eliminating Israel's identity as a Jewish state altogether.

Romer herself described U.S. defense and economic support for Israel as a DSA "solid red line."

The mask is coming off.

For Christians who take biblical prophecy seriously, there is another element that should be impossible to miss.

Jerusalem keeps returning to the center of the controversy.

The Bible warned thousands of years ago that Jerusalem would eventually become a source of extraordinary international contention. Zechariah described a day when Jerusalem would become "a burdensome stone for all people."

Israel is increasingly being told that peace requires surrendering more than territory.

For a growing political movement, peace ultimately requires surrendering Israel itself.

And now its leaders are beginning to say so openly.

US Forces No Longer Allowed Into Strait of Hormuz – Iranian Army Commander

US Forces No Longer Allowed Into Strait of Hormuz – Iranian Army Commander

Sputnik

The United States has no right of passage through the Strait of Hormuz or access to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, while control of Hormuz is a necessary condition for ending the military conflict with Washington, Iranian Army Commander Major General Amir Hatami said on Sunday.

“US forces have been expelled and are no longer permitted to enter the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, or the Strait of Hormuz. Everyone should understand that American bases will never be able to return to their previous state, and Iran will never allow that to happen,” Hatami said as cited by Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB.

He also stressed that the Strait of Hormuz represents a geopolitical opportunity for Iran and that the situation in the waterway will never return to what it was before.

“This leverage [the Strait of Hormuz] is one of the necessary conditions for ending the war with the United States,” Hatami added.

Earlier, Saudi broadcaster Al-Hadath reported that Iran and Oman had reached an agreement on the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, pending approval by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. According to the channel, the agreement is expected to be officially announced in the coming days.

In recent weeks, Washington and Tehran, with the involvement of Middle Eastern mediators, have been trying to agree on the terms of a new deal to end the conflict. On August 9, US President Donald Trump said Washington was conducting negotiations with Tehran only “half-heartedly,” while claiming that Iran’s economic situation was deteriorating.

EU Net Zero Regulations Are Killing Off Agriculture

Dutch farmers rolled up with HUNDREDS of tractors to protest the government trying to shut down 5 poultry farms.

—The Whatfinger  News Team: Alex and Luke

Dutch farmers rolled up with HUNDREDS of tractors to protest the government trying to shut down 5 poultry farms. Their excuse? “Too much nitrogen.” These farms had valid permits and followed the rules… Now the province wants to strip them because of EU-driven nature regulations that treat farmers like environmental criminals. Dutch agriculture has been suffocating under this kind of regulatory overreach for years. Brussels writes the rules, local politicians enforce them, and working farmers get screwed… Writer: Sol – Mario Nawfal Post

Hundreds of Dutch farmers rolled into Den Bosch this past Friday with tractors, blocking roads and surrounding the provincial government building. Their target: North Brabant’s plan to revoke nature permits for five poultry farms over “too much nitrogen.” These farms held valid permits and followed the rules. The province wants to strip them anyway because they sit near protected Natura 2000 areas. Brussels writes the nitrogen rules. Local politicians enforce them. Working farmers get the bill.

This is not an isolated spat. It is the latest chapter in the European Union’s long campaign to shrink, regulate, and ultimately break independent farming under the banner of climate and nature protection. The Dutch nitrogen crisis has already forced hundreds of livestock operations off the land through buyout schemes. Government packages still aim for deep cuts in agricultural nitrogen emissions—figures in the 42-46% range by the early 2030s—while courts and Brussels pressure keep the pressure on. Farmers Defence Force and other groups keep the tractors rolling because the alternative is watching family businesses get legislated out of existence.

The same script played out in 2024 and 2025 with tractor blockades from the Netherlands to France, Belgium, Germany, and the streets outside the European Parliament. The stated reasons were the Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy: slash pesticide use, cut fertilizer, force land out of production, shrink livestock herds, and hit ambitious nutrient-loss targets. When the political cost became too high, Brussels walked back some of the most aggressive pesticide targets. The underlying machinery—Nitrates Directive limits, Natura 2000 designations, emissions trading pressure, and the push for “nature restoration”—never went away. Dutch farmers still face manure limits, permit uncertainty, and the threat of more buyouts. Irish plans once floated large-scale cow culls. Elsewhere the squeeze continues through regulation, subsidy conditions, and import competition that ignores the same standards European producers must meet.

Call it environmental policy if you want. The practical effect is fewer farms, higher costs, greater reliance on imports from countries that do not play by the same rules, and more power concentrated in the hands of unelected officials and activist NGOs. Productive land is treated as a problem to be managed rather than the foundation of food security and rural communities. When governments offer “generous” buyouts, the message is clear: exit the industry on our terms or get regulated into failure.

The climate and biodiversity language is cover. The operating theory is central planning dressed up as planetary emergency. Reduce domestic production capacity, control the remaining operators through permits and targets, open the door to favored global supply chains, and call the whole process “justice.” Traditional farming families—independent, rooted, skeptical of urban ideology—are obstacles to that vision. Nitrogen becomes the new lever. Livestock becomes the villain. Family land becomes a resource to be reallocated.

This is the same impulse that treats energy production, housing, and free speech as threats to be managed by experts. In the EU it runs through Brussels first. Member-state politicians then do the dirty work while pretending their hands are tied. Farmers who followed every rule suddenly discover the rules can be rewritten after the fact. Valid permits become temporary favors. Public support for the protests shows ordinary people see through the theater.

America should pay attention. The same network of foundations, bureaucrats, and activists pushes similar land-use, emissions, and “sustainable” food agendas here. The difference is that American farmers still have political room to fight, and voters in farm country have repeatedly rejected the full package. Europe is the live demonstration of what happens when those restraints disappear: tractor convoys, empty barns, and officials insisting the destruction is for the greater good.

Dutch farmers are not anti-nature. They are against being sacrificed so that distant policymakers can claim moral victory while food security and rural economies erode. The nitrogen numbers are real. The selective enforcement, the moving targets, and the refusal to treat agriculture as a strategic asset rather than a pollution source reveal the priorities. When the same institutions that lecture about food systems quietly accept lower production and higher import dependence, the environmental concern is secondary.

The tractors in Den Bosch are a reminder. European farmers keep showing up because the alternative is quiet extinction by regulation. The woke green project has never been about saving the planet. It is about who controls the land, the food, and the people who produce it. The Dutch farmers just refused to go quietly this week. More will follow.

Hezbollah awaits green light from Tehran to escalate Lebanon-Israel tensions

Hezbollah awaits green light from Tehran to escalate Lebanon-Israel tensions

Shachar Kleiman

A Lebanese source said Sunday that Hezbollah is deliberately seeking to derail direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, claiming the terrorist organization is stepping up its military activity while awaiting a green light from Iran to escalate further.

Lebanese newspaper Nidaa al-Watan cited a local political source as warning of Hezbollah's plans. The source said the organization was trying to disrupt the US-sponsored negotiations and was waiting for instructions from Tehran before broadening the military confrontation, against the backdrop of tensions between Iran and the US administration.

According to the Lebanese source, the current escalation in southern Lebanon is opening the door to dangerous scenarios that could lead to renewed war and the collapse of diplomatic talks. At the same time, the source also pointed a finger at Israel, claiming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was seeking a military achievement on the southern Lebanon front. The source claimed Netanyahu's goal was to improve his political standing ahead of the upcoming Israeli elections and to use developments on the ground to pressure the Lebanese side in the negotiations.

Meanwhile, Lebanese security officials told the Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat that any Hezbollah attempt to repel the IDF's advance in the Ali al-Taher Ridge area would likely be met with an expansion of Israeli strikes deeper into Lebanon. The officials said the aim was to increase pressure on both Hezbollah and the Lebanese state. They added that Lebanon continued to maintain that the ceasefire should be consolidated and that additional pilot zones should be designated for an IDF withdrawal.

The warnings came after a tense weekend in southern Lebanon. Three IDF soldiers were seriously wounded Saturday when an explosive drone launched by Hezbollah struck a force operating in the Ali al-Taher Ridge area, in violation of the ceasefire. In response, the IDF struck a series of targets, including a Hezbollah headquarters from which the attack order had been issued. In one strike in the Deir al-Zahrani area, Abu Hassan Alaa, a senior commander in Hezbollah's Badr Unit, was killed.

Following the attack on the soldiers, the Prime Minister's Office issued an unusual English-language statement accusing Hezbollah of using civilians as human shields, after Lebanese authorities reported that 11 people had been killed in the Israeli strikes. The United States backed Israel, with a State Department spokesperson saying Hezbollah bore sole responsibility for the Israeli military presence on Lebanese soil and that the terrorist organization must be disarmed to ensure long-term stability.