"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"

Father God, thank you for the love of the truth you have given me. Please bless me with the wisdom, knowledge and discernment needed to always present the truth in an attitude of grace and love. Use this blog and Northwoods Ministries for your glory. Help us all to read and to study Your Word without preconceived notions, but rather, let scripture interpret scripture in the presence of the Holy Spirit. All praise to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Please note: All my writings and comments appear in bold italics in this colour
Showing posts with label geopolitics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label geopolitics. Show all posts

Friday, August 14, 2026

Middle East Madness > Nightmare scenario for Israel; Hamas support falling in PA

 

Geopolitics is organizing in preparation for the invasion of Israel, as prophesied in Ezekiel 38 and 39. The invading forces will consist mostly of Muslim countries led by either Russia or Turkey. And it won't be long now!


Jonathan Jay Pollard, born August 7, 1954, in Galveston, is a Jewish U.S. Navy intelligence officer who was sentenced to life imprisonment in the United States in 1987 for spying for Israel. ( Wikipedia)


Pollard warns of ‘nightmare scenario’ for Israel as Islamic alliance takes shape

A new defense alliance between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and nuclear-armed Pakistan is likely to pose a serious long-term threat to Israel, Jonathan Pollard warned this week.

By World Israel News Staff

A newly formed defense alliance bringing together Saudi Arabia, Turkey and nuclear-armed Pakistan could dramatically reshape Israel’s strategic environment in the years ahead, according to Jonathan Pollard.

The three countries signed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement on Aug. 7, establishing a collective-defense arrangement under which an armed attack against one member would be regarded as an attack against all three.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has compared the principle to NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense clause, although the precise military obligations imposed on each country remain unclear.

Writing in an analysis published by Israel National News, Pollard warned that Israel should focus not only on what the alliance is today, but on what it could eventually become.

“The nightmare scenario is not necessarily that the Mecca agreement immediately becomes an Islamic NATO,” Pollard wrote. “The nightmare is that it gradually becomes one.”

A formidable combination

The three countries bring markedly different capabilities to the emerging partnership.

Saudi Arabia contributes enormous financial resources, oil wealth and considerable political influence in the Sunni Muslim world.

Turkey has NATO’s second-largest military and a rapidly expanding domestic defense industry, including sophisticated drone and missile technologies.

Pakistan, meanwhile, brings a large military establishment and something neither of the other two countries possesses: nuclear weapons.

Together, Pollard argues, those capabilities could eventually form the foundation of a military alliance considerably more powerful than the sum of its parts.

“Money. Oil. Military power. Advanced weapons production. Strategic geography. And nuclear weapons,” Pollard wrote.

The concern is not entirely theoretical.

Reuters reported in May that Pakistan had deployed roughly 8,000 troops to Saudi Arabia, along with approximately 16 fighter aircraft, two drone squadrons and a Chinese-made HQ-9 air-defense system.

The equipment was being operated by Pakistani personnel and financed by Saudi Arabia, according to the report.

That deployment built upon a longstanding Saudi-Pakistani military relationship that took a major step forward in September 2025, when Riyadh and Islamabad signed their own mutual-defense agreement declaring aggression against either country to be aggression against both.

The agreement did not publicly establish a Pakistani nuclear guarantee for Saudi Arabia, leaving unanswered questions over whether Riyadh effectively falls under Islamabad’s nuclear umbrella.

Nevertheless, Pakistan’s status as the Muslim world’s only nuclear-armed state gives the new three-country arrangement a strategic dimension that Israel cannot ignore.

Could Egypt be next?

Perhaps the most significant question for Israel is whether the alliance will remain limited to its three founding members.

Pakistani officials have said the pact is open to additional countries, while Fidan has specifically identified Egypt as a potential future participant.

Egypt has already been coordinating closely with the three members.

In June, the foreign ministers of Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia met in Cairo and formally reaffirmed their intention to continue consultation and coordination on regional security issues.

The four governments have also repeatedly issued joint statements on Israel and the Palestinians, including condemnations of Israeli policies and actions at the Temple Mount.

Pollard believes Egyptian membership would substantially increase the potential danger to Israel.

“If Egypt ultimately joins, the strategic equation becomes still more serious,” he wrote.

Egypt possesses one of the Arab world’s largest militaries, controls the strategically vital Suez Canal and shares a lengthy border with Israel.

Its inclusion would potentially create a security framework extending from Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean through Egypt and Saudi Arabia to nuclear-armed Pakistan in South Asia.

That would not mean the countries were preparing for war with Israel, Pollard emphasized.

But it would create the infrastructure through which a future conflict involving one country could potentially draw in others.

Officials insist alliance is defensive

The governments involved have rejected suggestions that they are creating an aggressive Islamic military bloc.

Fidan said Saturday that the agreement is not directed against Iran or any other specific country and said assistance to a member under attack could range from intelligence and logistical support to military forces, depending upon the circumstances.

Pakistan has similarly described the agreement as “purely defensive.”

The pact nevertheless goes beyond a general declaration of friendship. It provides for political and military coordination, regular meetings among senior officials and a permanent secretariat in Saudi Arabia.

Fidan had also made clear months before the agreement was signed that Ankara favored a broader regional security structure.

In a January interview, the Turkish foreign minister said a regional pact could begin with “2-3 countries” and eventually evolve into something encompassing most countries in the region.

A changing regional order

The alliance also raises questions about Saudi Arabia’s long-discussed normalization with Israel.

For years, American and Israeli officials envisioned Saudi Arabia potentially joining the Abraham Accords and becoming a central component of a U.S.-backed regional architecture linking Israel with moderate Arab states.

The Mecca pact represents a different model: Saudi Arabia strengthening its security through partnerships with two major Muslim powers outside the Arab world, both of which have frequently clashed politically with Israel.

It does not necessarily rule out future Saudi-Israeli normalization. Riyadh has historically pursued multiple and sometimes competing relationships simultaneously.

But it could complicate efforts to build a regional security system centered on cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

For Pollard, the immediate question is not whether the three countries intend to attack Israel.

It is whether Israel is watching the early stages of an alliance that could become far more consequential in five or ten years.

“Strategic alliances rarely appear fully formed,” he wrote. “They develop incrementally.”

Pollard urged Israel to respond by strengthening missile defense, intelligence capabilities, air superiority, long-range strike capacity and relationships with countries opposed to the emergence of a hostile regional military bloc.

“The most dangerous mistake Israel could make,” he concluded, “would be to wait until the alliance is fully assembled before taking the threat seriously.”

Jonathan Pollard’s original analysis was published by Israel National News.

============================================================================


Hamas support falls as Marwan Barghouti leads Palestinian opinion poll

The poll further found that 83% of respondents believe there is corruption within Palestinian Authority institutions, while 65% described the PA as “a burden” rather than an achievement.

By Pesach Benson, TPS

Hamas has lost significant public support among Palestinians in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip, while imprisoned Fatah figure Marwan Barghouti emerged as the clear front-runner in a hypothetical Palestinian Authority presidential election, according to a new survey.

The poll, conducted by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), was released as Hamas said it had accepted a proposal from Peace Council envoy Nikolay Mladenov covering the second phase of the Trump plan for Gaza, including the group’s relinquishing its weapons.

According to the survey, Hamas’s overall support fell to 24%, down from 35% 10 months earlier, while Fatah remained at 24%.

The decline was sharpest in Judea and Samaria, where support for Hamas fell from about one-third of respondents to roughly one-fifth.

In Gaza, support for the group fell to about one-third.

In a hypothetical presidential election among likely voters, Barghouti would receive 54% of the vote, followed by Hamas figure Khalil al-Hayya at 26% and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at just 14%.

Separately, 79% of respondents said they want Abbas to resign.

Barghouti, now 67, is the highest-profile Palestinian imprisoned in Israel, serving currently serving five life sentences for his role in terror attacks during the Second Intifada.

Palestinians have not held national elections since 2005, and Abbas is now in the 21st year of what was supposed to be a four-year term.

Since then, Abbas has postponed or canceled planned elections amid disagreements between Fatah and Hamas, most recently in 2021.

Palestinian legislative elections are currently scheduled for November 28.

The survey also found that only 20% of Palestinians believe Hamas won the Gaza war, compared with 39% who held that view 10 months ago, while 60% said neither side won.

Despite Hamas’s declining popularity, most respondents oppose disarming the group before a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

The poll found that 72% oppose Hamas giving up its weapons before such a withdrawal, while the same percentage said disarmament would lead to renewed fighting rather than an Israeli pullout.

Support for negotiations as the most effective path to Palestinian statehood rose to 44%, up from 36% 10 months earlier and the highest level in four years.

At the same time, support for what the poll calls “armed struggle” fell to 27%, its lowest level in that period, while support for “peaceful popular resistance” rose to 19%.

Palestinians remain divided, however, over whether “armed resistance” has been effective.

Half said it had failed to end the presence of Israeli forces or protect Palestinians, while half disagreed.

Fifty-eight percent said a two-state solution is no longer practical because of the expansion of Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria, while 64% said they see little or no chance of an independent Palestinian state being established within five years.

The poll further found that 83% of respondents believe there is corruption within Palestinian Authority institutions, while 65% described the PA as “a burden” rather than an achievement.

On regional matters, the survey found relatively high levels of satisfaction with Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis, while satisfaction with U.S. President Donald Trump stood at just 5%.

The poll was based on 1,270 respondents — 830 in Judea and Samaria and 440 in Gaza — surveyed between August 5 and 8. The reported margin of error was 3.5%.

============================================================================


Friday, February 6, 2026

The West's Pragmatic Fallacy > or, Why Iran will blow up in America's face

 

The West’s pragmatic fallacy


Qatar is the Jeffrey Epstein of world politics

Jeffrey Epstein meets with Qatari prince Sheikh Jabor bin Khalid al Thani, president of the Qatar Racing Club

When people are called pragmatic, it’s meant to imply reasonableness, the ability to compromise, occupying the sensible middle ground.

That compliment may often be justified. However, as the obverse of principle, pragmatism has also been the West’s progressive undoing.

US President Donald Trump is an arch pragmatist. His “art of the deal” is based on beating down the other side through negotiations in which he plays a superior hand.

This approach characterises his foreign policy. Over both Iran and Gaza, however, it’s currently threatening to derail his intention to restore respect for American power — not to mention his much-desired legacy as the world’s principal peacemaker.

At time of writing, a negotiation process still seems to be under way between the United States and the Iranian regime as an alternative to war. Trump’s terms include the regime giving up its nuclear programme, ballistic missiles and sponsorship of terrorism — a demand for nothing less than surrender, to which the regime will never agree.

If Trump attacks Iran, we’ll finally know he realises that deal-making among nations has its limits. But the fact that he keeps being persuaded to continue with these talks, however reluctantly, has created fears that he’s being played by the world’s supreme masters of tactical concessions, delay and manipulation.

In Gaza, where Trump prevented Israel from finishing off Hamas and forced the Israelis into a negotiated ceasefire, Hamas has regrouped and strengthened, daily breaking the ceasefire by attacking Israeli troops.

Although Hamas refuses to demilitarise, Trump is moving ahead with the second stage of his Gaza peace plan which he originally said was dependent on total demilitarisation. The concession is another example of choosing pragmatism over principle.

This reveals a fallacy that Trump shares with his liberal universalist foes, who form the majority of mainstream diplomats and for whom “conflict resolution” rather than war is an article of faith.

This is based on the iron belief in the efficacy of negotiation and compromise, which relies in turn on the fallacy that everyone in the world, like the West, is governed by short-termism and self-interest.

To such pragmatists, the idea that Islamists believe they are doing divine work in murdering and conquering unbelievers is too absurd to be taken seriously.

They therefore fail disastrously to realise that Tehran’s agenda is totally and irrevocably non-negotiable. They also fail to grasp that Hamas similarly view negotiated concessions as a sign of weakness, which galvanises them to redouble their infernal efforts.

Last week, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, told the president that Hamas will demilitarise “because they have no choice.” “They’re going to give it up. They’re going to give up the AK-47s,” he said. Why? What incentive do they have?

Moreover, Britain’s Telegraph reported last month that Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, had been “hammering the phone” with Witkoff and other officials pushing for Hamas to be allowed to retain AK-47s and other personal weapons.

To break the deadlock, Powell was suggesting, just abandon the demand for demilitarisation. Simple!

The sinuous Powell, who is highly influential in Washington, DC, has a long record of pragmatic engagement with terrorists. His connections with IRA leaders during Northern Ireland’s sectarian violence in the 1980s and 1990s led to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and 28 years of peace in the province.

The British are constantly thrusting this agreement down the throats of the Americans as a genius strategy to end world conflicts.

Last year, Robert Ford, a former US ambassador to Syria, revealed that in 2023 Powell’s NGO Inter Mediate, which provides a bridge between diplomats and terrorists, had introduced Ford to the al Qaeda terrorist Mohammed al Jolani, now known as Ahmed al Sharaa and, since last January, Syria’s president.

Powell was thus instrumental in prompting Ford to help transform al Jolani into a “moderate” statesman who said he had renounced his earlier extremism. Yet last month, after having slaughtered Alawites, Druze and Christians, al Sharaa’s army smashed the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces and captured swathes of Kurdish territory, inflicting atrocities in Rojava.

A ceasefire deal brokered by the Americans delivered the Kurds into al Sharaa’s control. This has caused the Kurds to feel bitterly betrayed by the West, having previously acted as its invaluable allies against Islamic State, the terrorist group to which al Sharaa once belonged.

Using the Good Friday Agreement as a global “conflict resolution” template is a category error. The IRA merely wanted a united Ireland, a reasonable if contested aspiration.

Islamists, however — with their fanatical, absolute and non-negotiable agendas to destroy Israel, the Jews and the West — don’t suddenly become convinced of the benefits of pragmatism. Instead, they become convinced of the endless gullibility or amoral cynicism of Western diplomats bent upon making concessions which these implacable foes rightly perceive as weakness.

Pragmatism involves dismissing or even denying the importance of virtue and its opposite, evil. This is the hallmark of today’s Western world.

That’s why Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier whose copious files were dumped into the public arena this past week — revealing the staggering scale and depth of his depraved influence — was not an aberration but the monstrous apotheosis of the culture.

He was a spider spinning an enormous global web of financial, sexual and political corruption. People were drawn into it in huge numbers because he was a passport to money, sexual licence and political influence.

That was because all the West’s normative moral rules had broken down.

Hyper-individualism had made licentiousness the order of the day. Absolutes such as truth or objectivity were abolished in favuor of subjective opinions and the primacy of feelings and emotion.

The nuclear family was smashed. Sexual morality gave way to a lifestyle free-for-all. Non-judgmentalism was mandatory. Young people now learn codes of sexual behaviour from pornography.

For the West’s elites to be clutching their pearls over Epstein piles hypocrisy upon moral collapse.

In Britain, the Epstein scandal is threatening to bring down Starmer, who in 2024 appointed Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. It’s now been revealed that Mandelson appears to have received money from Epstein while sending him, while he was Britain’s business secretary, market-sensitive, secret information about the government’s responses to the financial crash in 2008.

Starmer has been forced to admit that, when he sent Mandelson to Washington, he was aware that his new ambassador had continued his friendship with Epstein after the financier’s conviction in 2008 for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

Starmer appears to have taken the pragmatic view that Mandelson’s stellar political abilities made it worth the gamble. With the gamble now blowing up in Starmer’s face, it turns out that pragmatism was a losing bet.

Pragmatism is fine within the guardrails of normative morality. But if it tears out those guardrails and throws them into the trash, then it goes belly-up.

Pragmatism has corrupted the West and exposed it to grave danger in one particularly graphic example. Qatar, an Islamist Muslim Brotherhood state, works to destabilise and ultimately conquer the West for Islam.

Accordingly, over the decades it has insinuated itself into America and Britain, turning their universities into Islamic propaganda factories and buying up countless individuals in politics and the media.

As a result, instead of viewing Qatar as an enemy, America has treated it as a valuable ally. It used Qatar — the sponsor of Hamas — as an honest broker in the Israeli hostage negotiations, which is why they dragged on at the cost of countless hostages’ and Israeli soldiers’ lives.

And now, Qatar has pride of place on Trump’s Board of Peace — and is using all its influence to stop Trump from destroying the Iranian regime.

You might say that Qatar is the Jeffrey Epstein of world politics.

Dealing with the devil never ends well. Abandon principle for pragmatism, and everything goes smash. It’s a lesson the West clearly has yet to learn.

============================================================================================