The Restoration, Redemption, and Reascendancy of Israel in the Last Days

The Restoration, Redemption, and Reascendancy of Israel in the Last Days

Dr. Nathan E. Jones

Imagine you have just seated yourself in a fine opera theater, anticipating the start of the production in about 20 minutes. You hear the sounds of scenery being moved into place behind the curtain, and before long, the shuffle of feet as actors and singers all begin to take their various places. The orchestra members in the pit are tuning up their instruments. But the orchestra conductor hasn’t taken his place on the podium yet, and there’s still the occasional shifting of props heard behind the curtain. While you are eager to have things start, you understand that it won’t until all the necessary components are in place and everything is ready.

Friends, we are all anticipating the dramatic events of the “Last Days” foretold in Scripture, and we are seeing the participants in that grand drama starting to take their place. Even though we can’t predict the start time, we know things are close because most participants weren’t here years ago, but now they are!

Here are two key verses that lay out a general timeline for the events of the Last Days:

“Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24, LSB)

“Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins. As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:25-29, ESV)

While careful Bible students might have slightly differing understandings of how these two verses might be fulfilled, or a timeline for when they will be fulfilled in the future, it’s important to understand that many things in the Bible happened during a “transitional period,” rather than all at once. A well-known example is the pronouncement of death upon Adam and Eve for their disobedience. Through the Bible, we know a period of many years until they actually passed. But in God’s reckoning, the moment that they disobeyed, they lost eternal life and entered into the dying stage. Another example is the transitional nature of the book of Acts, marking the beginning of the “Dispensation of Grace” at the cross. Yet, another 40 years during which sacrifices continued to be offered at the Temple in Jerusalem, only then came its prophesied destruction.

So, let me suggest that there are three ongoing trends that characterize this transitional period in which we find ourselves. I’m going to organize these trends using three keywords: Restoration, Redemption, and Reascendancy.

More...

The ‘Empire Killer’ Strikes Again

The ‘Empire Killer’ Strikes Again

Nick Giambruno

One of the most potent and underappreciated forces responsible for the downfall of the most powerful empires throughout history has been debt.

While military defeats, political upheavals, and external invasions often dominate historical accounts of the fall of great powers, excessive debt—the “Empire Killer”—has quietly but relentlessly eroded the foundations of empires across the centuries.

From Rome to the Soviet Union, the over-extension of resources, poor financial management, and the inability to service massive debts have led to economic collapse, social unrest, and, ultimately, the demise of these once-mighty empires.

Understanding how debt has played a role in the fall of these empires gives us insight into the role it could play in the collapse of the US Empire.

Here is a summary of some prominent historical examples of this clear pattern.

One of the most iconic examples of debt’s destructive force is the Roman Empire.

At its height, Rome was the center of the known world, controlling vast territories, including much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of the Middle East.

Maintaining a vast empire required immense financial resources. The Roman government needed to fund its sprawling military, build infrastructure such as roads and aqueducts, and support the grandeur of its capital city.

Emperors financed the resulting debt by debasing the currency—reducing the silver content in Roman coins.

However, this led to rampant price increases and economic instability.

The more the Roman government tried to print its way out of debt, the worse the problem became.

As debt and inflation strangled the Roman economy, the empire struggled to pay its soldiers, undermining military morale and effectiveness.

Weakened by internal financial collapse, Rome became vulnerable to external threats. The combined weight of financial mismanagement, social unrest, and military decline led to the empire’s collapse.

More....

On The Brink - War Timeline Is Narrowing

On The Brink - War Timeline Is Narrowing

 PNW STAFF

War rarely begins with a declaration. More often, it arrives disguised as routine meetings, shipping advisories, and "defensive" military movements that quietly redraw the boundaries of risk. That is where the United States, Israel, and Iran now stand--locked in a cycle of escalation where diplomacy continues in form, but preparation for conflict is advancing in substance.

At the center of this accelerating crisis is an unusually urgent meeting in Washington between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Originally planned for a later date, Netanyahu's visit was moved up in response to growing Israeli concerns about Iran's ballistic missile program, underscoring the rapid pace at which the situation is evolving. Israeli officials have described it not as symbolic diplomacy, but as a "strategy-shaping session"--a meeting intended to align on contingency plans, not photo opportunities. 

Adding to the pressure, the so-called Board of Peace is scheduled to convene on February 19, a forum intended to explore regional de-escalation but one that also sets a hard point on the calendar for decisions. The compression of these timelines is stark: with diplomacy, military planning, and multilateral talks converging, the window for preventing a confrontation is narrowing fast.

Publicly, the White House maintains that it prefers a negotiated outcome. Vice President JD Vance has reiterated that President Trump is seeking a "meaningful deal" with Iran--one that stabilizes the region and restrains Tehran's ambitions. Privately, however, patience is thinning. U.S. officials are pressing Iran to arrive at the next round of talks with concrete concessions, warning that time and tolerance are both finite.

Iran has responded by hardening its stance. Tehran has offered only limited compromises in exchange for the complete removal of sanctions, a condition Washington is unwilling to accept. As the diplomatic gap widens, the United States has quietly begun preparing for contingencies that suggest officials are no longer confident talks will hold. U.S.-flagged vessels have been advised to stay "as far as possible" from Iranian waters while navigating the Strait of Hormuz--one of the world's most vital energy corridors. Such advisories are rare, and they reflect a genuine concern that maritime confrontation could erupt with little warning.

Military Signals Beneath the Diplomatic Surface

While negotiations continue on paper, the military picture tells a more sobering story. Open-source intelligence analysts have tracked an unusual surge in U.S. military movement from Europe into the Middle East. Strategic airlift aircraft--C-17 Globemaster IIIs typically used to transport heavy equipment, missile systems, and personnel--have appeared in notable concentrations at Ramstein Air Base in Germany and Al Udeid in Qatar. Tanker aircraft, surveillance platforms, drones, and naval patrols have followed.

U.S. Navy reconnaissance aircraft have been repeatedly observed flying maritime routes south of Iran, while aerial refueling tankers briefly operated close enough to Iranian airspace to raise alarms before tracking feeds went dark. A U.S. carrier strike group is already operating in the region, and President Trump has publicly stated that he is considering deploying an additional carrier if talks collapse. Patriot missile systems, meanwhile, remain mounted on mobile platforms, allowing rapid repositioning either to defend against Iranian retaliation or to support offensive operations.

This posture goes beyond deterrence. It reflects readiness.

Iran's Warning: A War Preview, Not a Threat

Tehran has responded with a message designed to be seen, not merely heard. The Iranian regime has released a highly produced propaganda video depicting the destruction of what it derisively labels Donald Trump's "armada" in the Middle East. The footage simulates a coordinated, multi-domain assault on a U.S. carrier strike group--ballistic and cruise missiles raining down from land, submarines firing torpedoes, fast patrol boats swarming the fleet, and waves of jet-powered Shahed drones slamming into American warships. These are the same drones Russia has used extensively to terrorize Ukrainian cities.

The video is more than propaganda. It reflects a strategic shift. Israeli officials are no longer primarily focused on Iran's nuclear program, which they believe was largely neutralized during previous U.S. strikes. The greater concern now is Iran's rapidly expanding ballistic missile arsenal--thousands of increasingly precise weapons designed to overwhelm air defenses and strike multiple targets simultaneously. This is saturation warfare, and it is central to Iran's deterrence doctrine.

Israel's Calculus--and the Risk of Acting Alone

For Israel, the margin for error is narrowing. Netanyahu's expedited meeting with Trump has fueled speculation that Jerusalem is seeking clarity--either assurance that the United States will act if diplomacy fails or tacit approval to move independently if it does not.

An Israeli operation would likely focus on missile infrastructure and command-and-control nodes rather than nuclear sites. But such a strike would almost certainly trigger a broader regional response. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq, and Houthi forces in Yemen could all be activated. Israel could find itself engaged on multiple fronts within days.

Four Paths Forward--and None Without Consequences

More....

Tehran threatens missile barrage on Israel’s center

Tehran threatens missile barrage on Israel’s center

Israel Today Staff

In the heart of Tehran, the Iranian regime has unveiled a new propaganda billboard that openly threatens a missile attack on Israel’s metropolitan area. The image was placed in Palestine Square, a location that has been used for years for state-orchestrated displays against Israel and is regularly updated with changing political messages.

The motif shows a detailed map of central Israel with marked targets, including Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Herzliya, and Ben Gurion International Airport. Above the depiction appears the English sentence “You start – we finish it.” The image is supplemented by Hebrew slogans referring to Israel as a “small, vulnerable territory.” The visual message is unmistakable: should a military strike be launched against Iranian targets, Tehran is announcing a massive missile attack on Israel’s center.

The threat comes against the background of reports that Iran has now rebuilt its missile arsenal damaged in the war with Israel. Tehran thus continues to possess ballistic capabilities that can, in principle, reach targets in central Israel.

Palestine Square has long served as a symbolic venue for Iranian anti-Israel propaganda. 

In the past, installations have been displayed there that openly called for Israel’s destruction or visualized corresponding scenarios. Among other things, a doomsday countdown clock was installed there, symbolically ticking down to the destruction of Israel. The installations at this location are regularly replaced, but they always follow the same ideological line.

The new billboard fits into this practice, but it features a map of central Israel with marked locations and largely dispenses with abstract symbolism. The depiction points to a possible Iranian response in the event of a military attack on the ayatollah regime.

This comes at a time of ongoing talks between the United States and Iran, most recently held in Muscat, the capital of Oman. These are indirect talks in which Washington and Tehran communicate through mediators. According to diplomatic sources, these discussions focus primarily on the Iranian nuclear program.

Other issues—such as Iran’s missile arsenal or Tehran’s regional role—are not yet part of the talks. Israel, however, demands that these security-relevant points be included in any possible negotiations. Against this backdrop, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will travel to Washington tomorrow to speak with US President Donald Trump about the ongoing US–Iran talks.

Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ isn’t about Gaza: It’s about replacing the UN

Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ isn’t about Gaza: It’s about replacing the UN

 In a thought-provoking commentary published on February 10, 2026, the European Policy Centre (EPC) warns that President Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” initiative is less about addressing the humanitarian and political challenges in Gaza, and more about reshaping the global governance architecture in a way that could marginalize the United Nations.

At face value, Trump’s Board of Peace emerged as part of a controversial U.S. plan to manage post-conflict reconstruction and governance in Gaza after the 2023–2025 war and subsequent fragile ceasefire arrangements.

But according to the EPC analysis, this forum signals something far deeper and potentially more destabilizing: the normalization of a model in which international crises are governed outside the established multilateral legal framework embodied by the UN.

While discussions about reconstruction and stabilization are urgent, the timing and structure of the Board — coming as the UN itself grapples with financial fragility and unpaid dues — suggests a deliberate effort to sidestep the Convention system that has underpinned international peacebuilding for decades.

Critics argue that what makes this development truly consequential isn’t merely the Board’s activities in Gaza, but the precedent it sets: a world where peace processes and crisis management may increasingly take place in closed, informal settings controlled by powerful states and wealthy contributors rather than through inclusive, rules-based institutions.

As the EPC commentary notes, a weakened UN does not collapse in dramatic fashion — it simply becomes “a lesser option,” sidelined by newer bodies that claim efficiency and effectiveness precisely because they operate outside the constraints of universal representation and international law.

This debate carries real geopolitical implications. Supporters of the Board argue that a fresh multilateral forum could streamline decision-making and avoid the gridlock often associated with UN diplomacy.

Yet opponents — especially in Europe and among like-minded democracies — see the Board’s emergence as a potential threat to the post-World War II order, which has historically anchored collective security and cooperative conflict resolution.