Board Of Peace: Behind The Language Of Reconstruction And Prosperity Lies A Very Real Danger

Board Of Peace: Behind The Language Of Reconstruction And Prosperity Lies A Very Real Danger

David Bowen

For decades, the Middle East has been the world’s most stubborn unresolved conflict zone. Many leaders have promised peace. Many have produced frameworks. Many have announced “historic breakthroughs.” Yet Israel remains surrounded by hostility, targeted by terror, and pressured by nations that claim they want stability—while simultaneously restraining Israel’s ability to defend itself.

Now, a new proposal has entered the conversation: President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace initiative, reportedly structured across three escalating layers of authority—the Peace to Prosperity Plan, Project Sunrise, and what is described as the highest governing tier: the Board of Peace.

Its stated purpose is ambitious: transform Gaza into a modern, high-tech metropolis—an economic engine meant to replace war with development. But behind the language of reconstruction and prosperity lies a critical question prophecy watchers must ask: Is this structure truly protecting Israel—or is it positioning the nations to control Israel through internationalized “peace”?

The Board of Peace: A Global Structure with a Broad Mandate

According to the charter language associated with this initiative, the Board of Peace is not presented as a temporary Gaza committee. Instead, it carries an expansive mission: An international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.

In other words, it claims authority not merely to rebuild—but to govern, oversee, intervene, and stabilize in places where conflict exists or may arise. That matters—because international “peacekeeping” structures often evolve beyond their original intent. What begins as humanitarian reconstruction can become a long-term mechanism of influence, enforcement, and control.

While Trump is said to chair the Board of Peace, authority is reportedly divided among three primary divisions: the Executive Board of Peace, the Gaza Executive Board (GEB), and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG). 

This layered leadership design implies permanence—an institutional model designed not for a single agreement, but for ongoing governance. Even more significant is the reported presence of influential international figures and participating nations that have direct regional agendas, including Turkey and Qatar.

The Concern: Influence Over Gaza Means Pressure Against Israel

Here is the strategic reality that cannot be ignored: Whoever governs Gaza’s security, economics, and political future will eventually influence Israel’s border realities. And if Israel is not central in shaping the structure, then Israel risks being boxed into decisions made by others. That becomes more alarming when nations openly critical of Israel are seated in positions of operational influence.

Turkey has repeatedly opposed Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Qatar has been accused of playing both sides in the regional conflict—hosting influence while maintaining channels with hostile actors. When nations with such track records gain administrative authority, the question is not merely political. It is prophetic. Because Scripture has already warned that the nations of the earth will eventually move together against Jerusalem.

Prophetic Echoes: “All Nations…Gathered Against Her”

The Bible does not portray Israel’s end-times challenge as limited to local hostility. It consistently reveals an international dimension, a moment when Jerusalem becomes the world’s obsession, burden, and battleground.

Zechariah 12:3 declares: “And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” Jerusalem becomes a “burden” so heavy that every nation that tries to move it injures itself. This is not merely military invasion, it is international obsession and interference.

The prophet Joel adds another dimension: global judgment connected to how nations treat Israel: “I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will enter into judgment against them…for they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land” (Joel 3:1–2).

That phrase—“divided up My land”—should sober every person who watches modern diplomatic frameworks. 

Because many “peace plans” ultimately revolve around one idea: reshaping the land in exchange for security. That may sound reasonable to politicians, but prophecy watchers recognize a deeper danger. The world repeatedly attempts to solve conflict by forcing Israel into concessions that God never authorized.

Does This Fulfill Daniel 9:27? No—But It May Condition the World

At this point, it is important to be biblically precise. Many believers turn to Daniel’s “covenant prophecy” when major peace deals arise. But Daniel 9:27contains specific markers that cannot be forced onto every diplomatic plan.

Daniel 9:27 states: “And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering…”

This prophecy requires non-negotiable elements:

• one central figure (“he”) confirms the covenant
• it is a firm covenant (binding and enforced)
• made with “the many” (multinational involvement)
• it lasts one week (7 years)
• temple worship is operating (sacrifices ongoing)
• sacrifices stop at the midpoint – leading to abomination/desolation

Trump’s initiative—based on what is currently being described—does not match these requirements. It is a political framework, not a prophetic covenant, there is no defined 7-year term, there is no temple focus, and sacrifices are not part of the structure. So biblically speaking, Trump proposed a deal and Daniel describes a covenant. One is political. The other is prophetic.

So while headlines move fast, believers must remain anchored to Scripture—not speculation.

The Real Takeaway: “Peace” Language Can Become a Trap

Even when a plan does not fulfill prophecy, it can still reveal the direction of the world.

What this current structure may illustrate is not fulfillment, but stage-setting:

• the normalization of multinational “peace” authority
• the increasing internationalization of Israel-related decisions
• the pressure to accept governance structures over strategic land
• the world’s growing appetite for “security” through control

It may not be the final act, but it could be a rehearsal. And prophecy watchers know this: the closer the world gets to the end of the age, the more “peace” becomes a sales pitch for something else, control, compromise, and coerced compliance.

That is why Paul’s warning remains so relevant: “While they are saying, ‘Peace and safety!’ then destruction will come upon them suddenly…” (1 Thessalonians 5:3). The world will not reject peace; the world will demand it, and in the process, it will pressure Israel and deceive many.

A Sobering Conclusion: Israel Will Stand—Because God Will Defend Her

Whether the world gathers through boards, treaties, financial coalitions, or diplomatic pressure, prophecy is clear: Jerusalem will be a burden. The nations will meddle. The pressure will intensify.

But Zechariah does not end with Israel defeated. It ends with God intervening. The nations will be judged not only for aggression, but for scattering God’s people and dividing His land. And in the end, the Lord Himself will defend Jerusalem.

This is not the hour for fear. This is the hour for discernment. Watch the diplomacy. Watch the alliances. Watch the language of “peace.” And above all—watch the Word of God.

Why New START Expiry Raises Risk of Nuclear Stand-Off

Why New START Expiry Raises Risk of Nuclear Stand-Off

Sputnik

With New START treaty expired, the US and Russia face a post–Cold War era with no legally binding limits on strategic nuclear forces for the first time, National Defense magazine editor-in-chief Igor Korotchenko tells Sputnik.

Korotchenko warns of the risks: 

The US could covertly and quickly reinstall nuclear warheads previously removed from land- and sea-based ballistic missiles under New START, significantly boosting its strike capabilities 

Under New START, both Russia and the US told each other ballistic missile launches for testing or training – but without it, any launch could be interpreted as the potential start of a nuclear attack 

Given the risks, Russia may seek to strengthen its retaliatory strike potential — particularly through mobile Yars-class missiles and possibly by starting production of Barguzin rail-based missiles, the pundit said. 

There is currently no alternative to New START capable of matching the security architecture and the shifting balance of power, Korotchenko notes. Washington intentionally delayed the extension of the treaty proposed by Russia in an attempt to bind China, the pundit explained, but Beijing thinks that unreasonable given the country’s small nuclear arsenal.

Washington may be aiming "to achieve military-technical superiority over Russia in nuclear weapons — either by expanding their nuclear forces or by simultaneously developing a global missile defense system in North America," Korotchenko warned.

The stakes are high: as soon as tomorrow morning, Russia and the US could wake up to a reality where they have no binding treaties governing strategic arms control, the pundit warns.

Uncharted Territory: US & Russia Now Have No Limits On Nuclear Weapons

Uncharted Territory: US & Russia Now Have No Limits On Nuclear Weapons

 TYLER DURDEN

On Thursday the world woke up entering uncharted territory as the US-Russia New START Nuclear Treaty has expired without renewal. The pact's last active day was February 4.

While there's yet hope that a comparable replacement could soon be forged between the globe's largest nuclear-armed powers and rivals, there are no current intensive talks happening on this front which have a 'legal' status related to international arms control.

Russian state media on Thursday has issued confirmation the last remaining nuclear arms pact between Washington and Moscow has ceased. According to statements in TASS:

The final day of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) falls on February 4, 2026. The United States has not responded to a proposal made by Russian President Vladimir Putin in September 2025 to continue observing the treaty’s quantitative limits on warheads and their delivery systems for one more year after its expiration. 

The document itself does not provide for another formal extension, as was done in 2021. As a result, beginning on February 5, if no reaction comes from Washington, the last bilateral agreement regulating US-Russia relations in the sphere of strategic stability will become history, Vedomosti writes.

However, Axios on Thursday has for the first time revealed secretive, behind-the-scene last ditch diplomatic efforts to reach at least a tentative understanding, writing that "the and Russia are closing in on a deal to continue to observe the expiring New START arms control treaty beyond its expiration on Thursday, three sources familiar with those talks tell Axios."

Meanwhile, a Wednesday statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio gives insight into why the White House has let New START expire: "Obviously, the president's been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it's impossible to do something that doesn't include China because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile." 

This has been a longtime complaint of Trump's, which goes all the way back to his first administration, when similar complaints about the existent framework for arms control were issued.

More...

Iran outlines multi-front war plan against US - report

Missile barrages and cyber operations: Iran outlines multi-front war plan against US - report

SHIR PERETS

Iran has published a detailed concept for war with the United States, describing missile barrages, proxy escalation, cyber operations, and threats to global oil flows, according to the IRGC-linked Tasnim news agency. 

The war scenario published by Tasnim begins with US strikes on nuclear and military sites in densely populated areas, followed by a rapid Iranian counter-barrage aimed at US regional bases.

The document touts hardened underground infrastructure and redundant command networks designed to survive an initial blow and enable sustained retaliation.

It portrays a saturation strategy where large salvos of ballistic missiles and drones are intended to tax Patriot and THAAD defenses, while Tehran’s “axis of resistance” ignites parallel fronts.

Under the plan, Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis, and Iran-aligned Iraqi militias would expand attacks, complicating any US focus on Iran itself. 

The concept echoes recent years of proxy warfare across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and the Red Sea, where Houthi maritime attacks disrupted shipping and drew international responses.

Additionally, according to Tasnim, Tehran’s cyber component would target transport, energy, finance, and military communications to disrupt US deployments and pressure host governments.

The plan also leans on geography, throttling the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global oil and gas shipments pass, to jolt markets and fracture support for sustained US action.

The strategy was framed as asymmetric endurance: not defeating the US outright, but making a prolonged war prohibitively costly.

The calculation assumes Iran’s proxies can coordinate under fire and host states will tolerate escalation on their soil, while also betting Washington will prioritize de-escalation over a grinding regional conflict.

The plan surfaced this week as US-Iran talks were set for Friday in Muscat, Oman, and after Donald Trump said Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should be “very worried,” raising fears of renewed escalation.

On Sunday, Iran’s chief of staff, Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi, announced that the country had revised its military doctrine toward an offensive approach after the Israel-Iran war.

“Americans should know that if they start a war this time, it would be a regional war,” Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated.

Xi Used Latest 2-Hour Call To Warn Trump On Taiwan Red Lines

Xi Used Latest 2-Hour Call To Warn Trump On Taiwan Red Lines

TYLER DURDEN

More details have emerged from Wednesday's Trump-Xi phone call, which it turns out was quite lengthy for the two leaders, lasting about two hours. We reviewed previously that President Trump hailed the "excellent" call, which was "long and thorough" - but Chinese version which was issued later presents something more contentious.

China’s official readout made clear that President Xi in the conversation focused heavily on Taiwan, and ways Washington can dial back the tensions over the self-ruled island.

Xi called the US approach to Taiwan "the most important issue in China-U.S. relations," declaring that China "will never allow Taiwan to be separated from China."

"The US must handle arms sales to Taiwan with extreme caution" Xi said, in reference to the billions in arms packages the US has signed off on over several years, spanning multiple administrations.

Separately Taiwan's foreign ministry also pointed out that US weapons sales to Taiwan continue unabated, Xi's warnings notwithstanding. Another key part of the call is seen in the following:

More...