THE BLUE TSUNAMI, THE COMING RECKONING, AND DANIEL 8

Consider what is happening.

The United States is reportedly positioning specialized military aircraft and other assets in and around the Middle East. Iran remains locked in a dangerous confrontation with America and Israel. Russia faces continuing attacks against its energy infrastructure while NATO countries strengthen their military posture. China is increasing pressure around Taiwan.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump, who has just witnessed his party lose both chambers of Congress, has spoken publicly about Iran destroying Los Angeles and San Diego in language so reckless that Americans across the political spectrum should be demanding an explanation.

And instead of appearing alarmed about the possibility of impeachment and congressional investigations, he projects extraordinary confidence.

Why?

Does he believe the coming investigations will amount to nothing?

Does he expect political circumstances to change?

Or does he anticipate a major international crisis that will eclipse the election and consume the attention of Congress?

I cannot know what is in the president's mind.

But I believe the convergence of political desperation, military preparations, and escalating international tensions demands urgent examination.

I have been warning readers of The Prophecy Tribune about the possibility of a catastrophic confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran.

I have also repeatedly warned that America's greatest danger may not be defeat in battle.

It may be the consequences of victory.

In my book, The 2026 Midterms: How America Can Pull Back From the Brink, I argued that America First voters needed genuine representation in Congress.

I did not advocate blind loyalty to the Republican Party.

I warned that unless America First voters organized behind candidates willing to exercise independent judgment and constitutional oversight, they risked surrendering Congress to the Democrats.

I believed that genuine America First representatives should be prepared to investigate wrongdoing regardless of which political party controlled the White House.

That included investigating Republican officials if the evidence warranted it.

The objective was not to protect Donald Trump.

It was to protect constitutional government.

Now Democrats have regained Congress, and the investigations that America First representatives might have conducted will instead be directed by Democratic leadership.

There is a profound irony in this outcome.

Millions of Americans supported Trump because they believed he would challenge corruption, end unnecessary wars, and put American interests first.

Yet his administration has now become the subject of serious questions involving military operations, financial conflicts, executive power, and the continuation of a deeply unpopular war.

The Republican Party's defeat was not simply a victory for Democratic messaging.

It was a warning that substantial numbers of Americans no longer trusted the administration's direction.

Following the election, Vice President JD Vance acknowledged that the war with Iran had contributed significantly to Republican losses.

He identified four major concerns among voters who had supported Trump and Vance in 2024 but abandoned Republicans in 2026:

Consider the significance.

The vice president of the United States is acknowledging that Americans who elected this administration to avoid unnecessary foreign entanglements became so dissatisfied that they helped return congressional power to the Democrats.

But why did the administration wait until after the election to acknowledge these grievances?

Vance was not an outside observer.

He was part of the administration.

He participated in an executive branch responsible for the decisions that produced this political backlash.

His criticism may reflect genuine disagreement, an effort to redirect policy, or an attempt to distinguish himself politically ahead of 2028.

Whatever his motives, the admission is extraordinary.

The Iran war has fractured the coalition that returned Donald Trump to power.

And now the president must confront the consequences.

When the new Congress convenes in January 2027, Democrats will possess the authority to conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, demand documents, examine government expenditures, and investigate executive-branch conduct.

They can examine military decisions, financial relationships, immigration enforcement, government contracts, and possible abuses of presidential authority.

They can also initiate impeachment proceedings.

The House needs only a simple majority to impeach a president or another impeachable federal official.

The Senate requires a two-thirds vote of members present to convict and remove that official.

Therefore, a Democratic majority does not guarantee Trump's removal.

But congressional investigations could uncover evidence that alters the political calculations of Republican senators.

What happens if investigators obtain documents contradicting administration statements?

What happens if financial records identify officials who improperly profited from confidential government information?

What happens if military investigations establish that unlawful orders were issued?

The constitutional process must be followed, and allegations must not be treated as convictions.

Nevertheless, Congress has a duty to investigate credible evidence of wrongdoing.

It is not required to remain silent simply because the president belongs to the opposing political party.

And it is not required to abandon its responsibilities because an investigation may be politically divisive.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has faced criticism concerning his leadership of the Pentagon and the administration's military operations.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie has pursued impeachment-related action, while Senator Thom Tillis has raised concerns about Pentagon management and accountability.

The new Congress should investigate the legal authority for military operations against Iran and Venezuela, the targeting decisions made during those operations, and whether officials provided accurate information to lawmakers.

It should examine whether the administration complied with applicable war-powers requirements and the laws governing military operations.

The president is commander in chief.

But he is not a monarch.

Congress retains constitutional authority over declarations of war, appropriations, military regulation, and oversight.

The administration cannot simply declare every military operation necessary and thereby eliminate constitutional scrutiny.

And Congress should not allow a future crisis to become an excuse for refusing to examine past conduct.

On January 3, 2026, American forces conducted a military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

The administration defended the operation in connection with criminal allegations against Maduro and American national-security interests.

But the military capture of a foreign head of state raises serious questions about constitutional authority and international law.

Who authorized the operation?

What intelligence justified it?

What legal advice was provided?

What was the extent of the military force employed?

Were civilians or military personnel unlawfully killed?

Did the administration possess authority to conduct the operation without additional congressional approval?

An American criminal indictment does not automatically resolve the legal questions surrounding military intervention in another sovereign country.

Congress should obtain the relevant documents and determine whether American officials acted within the law.

The financial aftermath of the Venezuela operation deserves equally serious examination.

Reuters reported that approximately $500 million in initial Venezuelan oil sales had been completed, with proceeds placed in U.S.-controlled accounts, including an account in Qatar.

Subsequent reporting described approximately $300 million being made available through Venezuelan banks.

These reports do not establish that Trump personally stole the proceeds.

But they raise questions that Congress should answer.

Who controlled the accounts?

What legal authority governed the transactions?

Why was Qatar involved?

What safeguards protected the proceeds?

Who approved transfers, and who ultimately benefited?

The administration's relationship with Qatar has also generated controversy because of the approximately $400 million Boeing 747-8 aircraft provided for presidential use.

The administration has defended that arrangement, while critics have questioned its ethical and constitutional implications.

The aircraft arrangement and Venezuelan oil transactions should not be presumed connected.

But both warrant transparent examination.

The administration's lethal strikes against vessels alleged to be transporting narcotics have raised serious questions about military authority and the use of force.

The government has characterized the targets as drug traffickers or members of designated organizations.

But allegations of criminal activity do not automatically establish that an individual is a lawful military target.

Congress should demand the intelligence used to identify the vessels, the legal memoranda authorizing lethal force, and any available operational recordings.

Were the targets correctly identified?

Were they engaged in conduct that legally justified military attack?

Were alternatives available?

Did the administration accurately disclose the facts?

These are not trivial legal technicalities.

They concern the government's power to take human life.

On February 28, 2026, an Iranian girls' school in Minab was struck during the war.

Iranian authorities reported that more than 175 children and teachers were killed.

Reuters reported that an initial American military investigation pointed toward likely U.S. responsibility.

A United Nations fact-finding mission subsequently reported reasonable grounds to believe the United States was responsible for strikes involving a school and sports facility and that the attacks constituted war crimes.

Those findings are not criminal convictions.

But they are serious enough to require a thorough and independent investigation.

Who authorized the strike?

What information identified the target?

Were civilian facilities properly distinguished from military objectives?

Were appropriate precautions taken?

Did commanders possess information indicating children were present?

Was the strike an error, the result of negligence, or something more serious?

Those questions must be answered through evidence.

The deaths of children should never be dismissed as an unfortunate inconvenience in the pursuit of military objectives.

The same moral standard must apply regardless of whether the victims are American, Iranian, Israeli, Palestinian, or Ukrainian.

The incoming Congress should examine the officials who designed and implemented controversial administration policies.

Stephen Miller has been a central architect of immigration enforcement.

Susie Wiles has played an influential role in managing the White House.

Project 2025 provided numerous policy recommendations and personnel proposals, although not every administration decision can be attributed to it.

Congress should examine the development of policies that may have infringed constitutional rights.

Were officials warned that particular practices could violate the law?

Were those warnings ignored?

Were enforcement operations conducted in accordance with judicial orders and constitutional protections?

The immigration controversy also contributed to a broader political backlash.

In Texas, Gina Hinojosa defeated Republican Governor Greg Abbott, becoming the state's first Latina governor.

That election cannot be attributed to a single issue.

But it illustrates how Republican vulnerabilities extended into territory once considered politically secure.

Christians should remember that enforcing the law and treating people humanely are not mutually exclusive obligations.

A government does not become righteous merely because its leaders invoke the name of Jesus Christ.

Its actions must also withstand moral examination.

One of the most explosive potential subjects of congressional investigation concerns enormous oil-market transactions made shortly before major announcements about the Iran war.

On May 7, ABC News reported that the Department of Justice and Commodity Futures Trading Commission were investigating at least four suspiciously timed transactions totaling more than $2.6 billion.

The reported transactions included:

March 23: More than $500 million in bets on falling oil prices approximately 15 minutes before Trump announced a delay in threatened attacks against Iranian energy infrastructure.

April 7: Approximately $960 million in bets on falling oil prices ahead of Trump's announcement of a temporary ceasefire.

April 17: Approximately $760 million in bets on falling oil prices shortly before Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that the Strait of Hormuz was open.

April 21: Approximately $430 million in bets on falling oil prices shortly before Trump announced an extension of the ceasefire.

These transactions were not ordinary small investments.

They involved enormous positions placed shortly before announcements capable of producing dramatic price movements.

And the story grew larger.

Reuters subsequently identified approximately $7 billion in unusually timed bets across oil and fuel markets during March and April.

That broader analysis included Brent crude, West Texas Intermediate crude, diesel, gasoline, and longer-dated futures contracts.

The $7 billion figure represents the approximate scale of positions identified—not proven profits or stolen money.

Reuters could not identify the traders or establish whether the transactions involved unlawful access to confidential information.

Nevertheless, the potential implications are extraordinary.

Who knew the announcements were coming?

Who placed these trades?

Were the transactions made by sophisticated investors anticipating diplomatic developments?

Or did someone obtain confidential information about decisions involving the president, the military, or Iranian officials?

If a trader knew in advance that an announcement would send oil prices downward, that information could be enormously valuable.

And if a government official improperly supplied that information, the matter could involve serious violations of law.

The CFTC and Justice Department investigations are therefore of enormous public importance.

Consider the moral implications.

American military personnel are deployed overseas.

Iranian civilians are living under the threat of renewed attacks.

Families across the world are paying higher energy prices.

Governments are deciding whether to strike military installations, energy infrastructure, or other targets.

And enormous financial positions are being placed just before announcements about those decisions.

If the trades were lawful, investigators should establish that.

If confidential government information was misused, the responsible parties should be held accountable under the law.

But the public cannot simply be told to trust the same political establishment whose conduct is being questioned.

Congress should seek beneficial-ownership information, communications, trading records, financial disclosures, and the precise timelines of the government decisions.

It should determine whether any government official, political associate, or private intermediary improperly benefited.

The investigation must follow evidence rather than political assumptions.

This is not the first controversy involving Trump's market-moving announcements.

In April 2025, Trump publicly encouraged investors to buy stocks before announcing a pause in certain tariffs.

The announcement produced a major market rally.

Democratic senators subsequently requested an investigation into possible insider trading or market manipulation.

A presidential announcement that moves markets is not inherently unlawful.

But if officials or connected parties traded improperly using material nonpublic information, that would raise serious legal concerns.

Congress should examine the chronology, communications, and financial records.

The question is not whether Trump's policies affected financial markets.

Of course they did.

The question is whether anyone unlawfully profited from privileged access to information about those policies.

ProPublica has examined financial transactions involving senior administration officials and congressional aides.

Its reporting included Attorney General Pam Bondi's sale of Trump Media shares valued between $1 million and $5 million.

The timing raised questions, but the reporting did not establish that Bondi possessed inside information or committed a crime.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's financial background and role in economic policy likewise make conflict-of-interest safeguards important.

Congress should examine relevant disclosures, recusals, and financial relationships where evidence supports inquiry.

But public office, financial wealth, or association with the president is not proof of criminal conduct.

The objective must be to establish what happened.

Investigators should pursue records identifying the entities behind the oil-market transactions, communications involving relevant government officials, the timing of presidential and military decisions, and any evidence of improper disclosure.

They should examine whether confidential information was shared with traders or intermediaries.

They should determine whether the financial-disclosure system adequately protected against conflicts.

And they should investigate whether anyone attempted to obstruct regulatory scrutiny.

If the transactions were legitimate, the public should be told why.

If they involved unlawful activity, the responsible individuals should face the consequences.

The intersection of war, political power, and enormous financial opportunities should concern every American.

Of all the president's recent statements, I find his comments about Iran potentially destroying American cities among the most disturbing.

During an October 5 rally in Nebraska, Trump discussed the Iran war and the economic cost of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

He then spoke about Iran potentially destroying Los Angeles and San Diego, using language that included:

The remarks provoked outrage from California officials.

Governor Gavin Newsom condemned them.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass warned that the president's statements could compromise public safety.

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria rejected the suggestion that his city could be treated as expendable.

The White House argued that Trump was describing the danger of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, not inviting Iran to attack American cities.

Trump subsequently stated that the United States would not allow such attacks and that he had been misunderstood.

I acknowledge that explanation.

But it does not erase the extraordinary irresponsibility of the original language.

No president of the United States should speak so carelessly about the destruction of American cities.

Los Angeles and San Diego are home to millions of people.

They are not rhetorical props.

Their residents are not bargaining chips in a political speech.

The president's first responsibility is to protect the American people.

If he intended to warn that Iran might one day threaten American cities, he could have said precisely that.

Instead, he used language that could reasonably alarm Americans and potentially be exploited by hostile foreign governments.

I consider that profoundly reckless.

And in the context of an ongoing military confrontation, recklessness by a commander in chief is not a minor concern.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides for impeachment and removal for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Treason has a specific and narrow constitutional definition.

Trump's disputed remarks about Los Angeles and San Diego do not, by themselves, establish treason.

But impeachment is not limited to conduct satisfying the criminal definition of treason.

The House may investigate serious abuses of presidential power, dereliction of constitutional responsibilities, and other conduct potentially constituting impeachable offenses.

The president's oath requires him to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

His constitutional office carries the responsibility of protecting the country.

Congress should therefore examine the remarks in their full context, along with any relevant national-security assessments and evidence of the president's conduct.

Did the statements create a security concern?

Were intelligence or military officials alarmed?

Did any hostile actor interpret the remarks as encouragement?

Was the president accurately informed about the threat?

Were his public statements consistent with the government's actual security posture?

If evidence establishes a serious abuse of office or dangerous dereliction of duty, the House should consider whether impeachment is warranted.

Congress does not have a constitutional obligation to impeach whenever a president makes a reckless statement. But it does have an oversight responsibility to investigate credible concerns about presidential conduct.

And if the evidence warrants impeachment, political convenience should not prevent Congress from acting.

That responsibility belongs to both parties.

This brings me to one of the most troubling questions.

The president has just watched his party lose control of Congress.

Investigations may be coming.

His defense secretary faces serious political criticism.

The Iran war has alienated voters who helped elect him.

The administration faces financial controversies involving billions of dollars in suspiciously timed market transactions.

Yet Trump continues to project confidence.

What explains that confidence?

Perhaps he believes Republicans in the Senate will protect him from conviction.

Perhaps he believes congressional investigations will fail to establish wrongdoing.

Perhaps he expects to negotiate a settlement with Iran and recover politically.

Or perhaps he anticipates a major international event that will change the political environment before the new Congress can act.

I do not know.

But the last possibility is one I cannot dismiss as a matter of political-risk analysis.

A major military confrontation could dominate the national agenda.

An attack on American personnel or territory could produce overwhelming pressure for retaliation.

Congressional leaders might postpone investigations during an emergency.

And the public could become consumed by fear, anger, and demands for national unity.

None of this proves that Trump intends to manufacture or exploit a crisis.

But it illustrates why Congress must remain vigilant.

War must never become a means of escaping accountability.

And Americans must not permit a president's political survival to become confused with the survival of the nation.

I have examined the possibility of a modern fulfillment of Daniel chapter 8 in which the United States corresponds symbolically to the goat and Iran to the ram.

I have warned that the great horn's breaking after a period of extraordinary power may have implications for America's future.

But I now believe readers must also consider another prophecy.

One that concerns not merely the rise and fall of a great power, but the removal of peace from the earth.

I am concerned that the military and geopolitical developments now unfolding could be preparing the conditions for this terrible event.

In Part Two, I will examine the reported movement of specialized American military aircraft toward the Middle East, the escalating confrontation involving Russia and NATO, China's pressure around Taiwan, and why I believe the red horse of Revelation 6:4 deserves our immediate attention.

Because the most important question is not whether Donald Trump will survive impeachment.

It is whether the world is approaching a war from which no nation will emerge unchanged.

Continued in Part Two: The Red Horse, the Gathering Armies, and the Warning of Revelation 6:4.

WLBJ — The Prophecy Tribune

Author of The 2026 Midterms: How America Can Pull Back From the Brink and The Republicrat — A Plea to Humanity.

Read more at TheProphecyTribune.com