THE BLUE TSUNAMI, THE COMING RECKONING, AND DANIEL 8

Consider the extraordinary convergence of events.

The Republican Party has just lost control of both chambers of Congress.

President Donald Trump faces the prospect of aggressive congressional investigations, possible impeachment proceedings, and renewed scrutiny of his administration's military operations and financial dealings.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also suffered a major electoral setback, losing his governing coalition's parliamentary majority.

Netanyahu is already on trial for corruption in Israel and remains subject to an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Both leaders face political adversaries determined to remove them from power.

Both have played central roles in the war against Iran.

And both have powerful reasons to fear what the loss of political authority could mean for their futures.

Meanwhile, reports of specialized American military aircraft operating near the Middle East raise questions about preparations for renewed operations against Iran.

Russia and NATO are engaged in increasingly dangerous military maneuvering.

China continues pressuring Taiwan.

Energy infrastructure is under attack.

And the possibility of a wider war involving multiple nuclear-armed powers is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss.

Could the world be approaching the moment described in Revelation 6:4, when peace is taken from the earth and people begin killing one another on an extraordinary scale?

I cannot say with certainty.

But I believe the danger is serious enough that Christians should be watching, praying, and preparing.

Revelation chapter 6 describes the opening of the first six seals.

The first seal introduces a rider on a white horse.

The second introduces the red horse.

The third introduces a black horse associated with scarcity and economic hardship.

The fourth introduces a pale horse whose rider is Death.

When the second seal is opened, John writes:

Then comes the red horse.

Its rider is given power to take peace from the earth.

People begin killing one another.

And the rider receives a great sword.

Notice the language.

The prophecy does not merely describe another regional conflict.

It describes the removal of peace from the earth.

The rider's appearance is associated with widespread bloodshed.

The great sword represents an extraordinary capacity for violence.

The passage does not identify nuclear weapons, nor does it name the nations involved.

But consider what worldwide warfare could mean in our modern age.

The United States, Russia, China, and other nations possess nuclear weapons capable of destroying entire cities.

Military technology allows nations to strike targets thousands of miles away.

Cyberwarfare can disrupt electricity, communications, banking, and essential infrastructure.

Advanced missiles can reach targets in minutes.

A major conflict among these powers could produce destruction on a scale unimaginable to earlier generations.

That is why I believe Revelation 6:4 deserves our immediate attention.

One of the most concerning developments involves reports of specialized American military aircraft being positioned in and around the Middle East.

Among the aircraft drawing attention is the RC-135U Combat Sent.

This is not an ordinary military transport aircraft.

The RC-135U conducts strategic electronic reconnaissance.

Its mission includes detecting, identifying, and analyzing radar emissions from foreign military systems.

The intelligence it gathers helps American commanders understand potential adversaries' electronic defenses.

According to the United States Air Force, only two RC-135U Combat Sent aircraft are in its inventory.

These aircraft provide capabilities that can be particularly important when military planners are evaluating operations against sophisticated air-defense systems.

Their presence in a potential conflict region is therefore noteworthy.

It does not establish that an attack has been ordered.

But it raises legitimate questions about what contingencies American commanders are preparing for.

Reports have also described MC-130J Commando II special-operations aircraft being positioned near Israel.

These aircraft support missions involving special-operations forces, including infiltration, exfiltration, resupply, and aerial refueling.

Such capabilities can be important when personnel must operate in dangerous or contested territory.

They can also support contingency planning and combat-rescue operations.

Consider what these capabilities could mean in a confrontation with Iran.

Electronic reconnaissance aircraft can help map an adversary's defenses.

Special-operations aircraft can support missions requiring highly trained personnel.

Rescue capabilities become essential when aircraft or personnel may be exposed to hostile fire.

Individually, these deployments can have defensive or routine explanations.

But collectively, if the reported movements are confirmed, they are consistent with capabilities a military might assemble while preparing for possible offensive operations.

And they deserve particular scrutiny because the United States is already engaged in a dangerous confrontation with Iran.

Reports have also suggested that the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt has been moving toward the United States Central Command region.

That reported movement requires confirmation.

But additional carrier capabilities near the Middle East would strengthen America's capacity to conduct or support military operations.

My concern is not that every military deployment proves an attack is imminent.

My concern is the larger pattern.

Why are specialized reconnaissance, special-operations, and potentially additional naval capabilities being discussed in connection with the Iranian theater at this particular moment?

Is the United States strengthening its defensive posture?

Is it attempting to pressure Iran into concessions?

Or is it preparing options for a renewed and potentially devastating military campaign?

The American people deserve answers.

In Part One, I examined the extraordinary investigative authority that Democrats will possess when the new Congress convenes in January 2027.

I discussed the Iran war, Venezuela, military strikes against alleged drug traffickers, the deaths of children in Iran, immigration enforcement, and the billions of dollars in suspiciously timed oil-market transactions.

I also addressed Trump's reckless remarks about Iran potentially destroying Los Angeles and San Diego.

Those matters could become subjects of extensive congressional scrutiny.

Yet Trump appears remarkably confident.

Why?

Perhaps he believes Republican senators will prevent his conviction if the House impeaches him.

Perhaps he believes investigations will fail to establish wrongdoing.

Perhaps he expects to regain political support.

But another possibility concerns me.

What if he anticipates a major international crisis that will overshadow the election and consume the attention of Congress?

I am not claiming to know the president's intentions.

But I believe this possibility deserves examination.

A president who has lost congressional support may still possess enormous military authority.

And a president facing serious political consequences may have incentives to seek a dramatic military victory.

That does not prove he will pursue one.

But the danger becomes particularly serious when the military confrontation involves Iran, Israel, and the possibility of wider regional war.

I remain deeply disturbed by Trump's October remarks concerning the possibility of Iran destroying Los Angeles and San Diego.

During a political rally, he used language that included:

The White House subsequently argued that Trump was warning about the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran rather than inviting an attack.

Trump later said that America would protect its cities.

Nevertheless, the original language was extraordinarily reckless.

No president of the United States should speak about the destruction of American cities in such a manner.

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

The president's constitutional responsibilities include protecting the nation, not casually discussing the destruction of its population centers.

His words could be misunderstood or exploited by hostile foreign governments.

Congress should examine whether those remarks reflected dangerous judgment or created any identifiable national-security consequences.

The remarks alone do not establish the constitutional crime of treason.

But impeachment is not confined to criminal treason.

If credible evidence establishes serious abuse of presidential authority or dereliction of constitutional responsibilities, the House has the power to consider impeachment.

The Democrats should not ignore evidence of potentially impeachable conduct simply because pursuing it would be politically difficult.

And Republicans should not defend behavior they would condemn if it came from a Democratic president.

Now consider the political incentives.

The president has lost Congress.

His administration faces investigations.

His military decisions may be examined under oath.

Financial records may be subpoenaed.

And the Iran war has alienated substantial numbers of Americans who supported him in 2024.

A major attack on American personnel or territory could dramatically change the political environment.

The public might demand immediate retaliation.

Congressional leaders might postpone investigations.

The administration could attempt to frame criticism as disloyalty during a national emergency.

That possibility concerns me.

And it raises an even more disturbing question.

What if an attack were falsely attributed to Iran—or if the circumstances of an attack were misrepresented to justify a much larger war?

I am not claiming that Trump, Netanyahu, the CIA, Mossad, or any other agency is planning a false-flag operation.

I possess no evidence establishing such a plan.

But the danger of misattribution, manipulated intelligence, or exploitation of a crisis is serious enough that any future attack must be investigated carefully before the United States undertakes a devastating military response.

Congress should demand reliable evidence.

It should examine who carried out an attack, what intelligence supports the attribution, and whether military retaliation is lawful and necessary.

A national emergency must not become an excuse to abandon constitutional government.

And war must never become a means of escaping political accountability.

Here is the development that makes the situation even more concerning.

Benjamin Netanyahu has also suffered a major electoral defeat.

Israel held parliamentary elections on October 27, 2026.

The results were devastating for Netanyahu's governing coalition.

His bloc secured only 53 seats in Israel's 120-member Knesset.

A governing majority requires 61 seats.

The principal opposition alliance led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot secured 48 seats, while Arab-led parties won a historic 19 seats.

Neither major bloc independently secured a majority.

But Netanyahu's coalition lost its governing majority, and opposition leaders have agreed to support Eisenkot in an effort to form a replacement government.

Israel's Central Elections Committee certified the results on November 4 and rejected claims of widespread election fraud.

Netanyahu remains prime minister while coalition negotiations continue.

But his political future is uncertain.

And unlike Trump, Netanyahu is already facing an active criminal corruption trial.

Netanyahu has been on trial since 2020 in three separate corruption cases.

The charges include allegations of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

The cases involve alleged exchanges of political favors for gifts or favorable media coverage.

One concerns gifts from wealthy businessmen.

Another concerns discussions involving favorable newspaper coverage.

A third involves allegations that regulatory decisions benefited a telecommunications businessman in exchange for favorable coverage.

Netanyahu denies wrongdoing.

He has characterized the proceedings as politically motivated.

But the trial remains a serious legal threat.

A criminal conviction could result in imprisonment.

And losing political power could weaken his ability to influence the political circumstances surrounding the proceedings.

Netanyahu also faces an extraordinary international legal problem.

On November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe they bore responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war in Gaza.

The allegations include starvation as a method of warfare, intentionally directing attacks against civilians, murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

These are allegations underlying an arrest warrant, not criminal convictions.

Netanyahu denies wrongdoing and Israel disputes the court's jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, the warrant remains an extraordinary legal threat.

The International Court of Justice is separately considering South Africa's genocide case against Israel.

That proceeding concerns the responsibility of the state of Israel, not a personal genocide conviction against Netanyahu.

The distinction matters.

But the broader reality is unmistakable.

Netanyahu faces domestic criminal prosecution, an international arrest warrant, and political opponents determined to remove him from office.

Netanyahu's government also pursued a controversial overhaul of Israel's judicial system.

Critics warned that the changes threatened judicial independence and weakened institutional checks on government power.

The proposals triggered enormous protests.

Netanyahu's legal difficulties have therefore existed alongside a prolonged struggle over the independence of institutions capable of holding political leaders accountable.

His government's conduct during the Gaza war has also generated intense international criticism.

And the October 7, 2023, security failures remain a source of public anger and demands for accountability.

These are not minor political disagreements.

They concern the future of Netanyahu's leadership and the possibility of serious legal consequences.

Consider the extraordinary position of these two men.

Trump has lost control of Congress.

Netanyahu has lost his parliamentary majority.

Trump faces the possibility of impeachment and investigations into his administration's military operations and financial conduct.

Netanyahu faces an active corruption trial and an international arrest warrant.

Both have adversaries who want them removed from power.

And some of their fiercest critics want far more than political defeat.

They want to see these men prosecuted, convicted where the evidence supports it, and imprisoned for any crimes they can prove—including war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In Netanyahu's case, international prosecutors have already pursued charges involving alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Critics of Israel's military campaign have also demanded accountability for alleged genocide, although Netanyahu has not been personally convicted of genocide.

In Trump's case, critics have demanded investigations into military operations involving Iran and Venezuela, including allegations that unlawful attacks or civilian deaths may have occurred.

Those allegations require evidence and appropriate legal proceedings.

Neither man's political defeat establishes criminal guilt.

But neither should political power shield anyone from lawful investigation.

The biblical principle is that rulers are not above God's judgment.

The constitutional principle is that public officials are not above the law.

Now consider the danger.

A dramatic military victory might temporarily redirect public attention.

An international emergency could place pressure on political opponents to suspend their attacks.

A major escalation might produce a rally-around-the-flag effect.

And a wider conflict could consume the attention of governments that would otherwise be focused on investigations and accountability.

These are potential political incentives, not evidence of a secret agreement.

But they matter.

What happens when two politically endangered leaders possess the military capacity to ignite a much larger regional war?

What happens when both may believe their political futures depend upon appearing strong?

And what happens if an attack on American or Israeli personnel becomes the justification for a devastating new assault on Iran?

I believe these are questions Americans and Israelis should be asking before another escalation occurs.

The possibility of a war serving political interests does not prove that the war was initiated for those interests.

But it is a reason for vigilance.

The survival of political leaders must never become more important than the survival of the people they govern.

The danger is not confined to the Middle East.

Russia continues to face attacks against its energy infrastructure.

NATO countries are strengthening military readiness along Europe's eastern flank.

Military exercises and deployments involving Poland, Lithuania, Finland, Germany, and other countries have become increasingly important to the regional security environment.

Reports have also raised questions about possible contingency planning for deeper strikes against Russian military infrastructure if coalition personnel are attacked.

Specific operational claims require independent confirmation.

But the strategic danger is unmistakable.

Attacks against energy infrastructure can weaken a country's economy and military capabilities.

They can also increase pressure on its leaders to retaliate.

If Russia concludes that NATO countries are directly participating in attacks against Russian territory, the danger of escalation increases.

And if NATO personnel are killed during operations connected with Ukraine, the pressure for retaliation could become enormous.

The Baltic region is especially sensitive.

Russia's Kaliningrad territory lies between NATO countries and contains strategically important military installations.

A military confrontation involving that region could quickly raise questions about alliance obligations and the possibility of direct war.

The danger is that an operation intended to deter aggression could be interpreted as preparation for attack.

Retaliation could follow retaliation.

And a conflict that began in Ukraine could expand into a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

In a world containing thousands of nuclear weapons, that possibility should alarm every responsible leader.

China represents another major concern.

Chinese military activity around Taiwan continues to create the possibility of a confrontation involving the United States and its regional allies.

China also depends heavily on international trade and imported energy.

A major disruption involving Iranian oil, Russian energy infrastructure, or strategic shipping routes could affect China's economy.

That does not mean China would automatically respond with military force.

But economic and strategic pressures can influence the decisions of governments.

Consider what might happen if the United States becomes deeply involved in renewed warfare against Iran while NATO and Russia move toward direct confrontation.

Would China see an opportunity to increase pressure around Taiwan?

Would the United States have sufficient resources to manage multiple simultaneous crises?

Could an incident in one region trigger military responses in another?

Russia, China, and Iran have different interests and are not a single unified power.

Nevertheless, their relationships with the United States are interconnected.

A major confrontation in one theater could influence decisions in the others.

That is one reason I am concerned about the possibility of a wider international war.

Another disturbing aspect of the present situation involves attacks against energy infrastructure.

Oil refineries, pipelines, shipping routes, and fuel supplies are essential to modern civilization.

Disrupting them can produce consequences far beyond the battlefield.

Fuel prices rise.

Food transportation becomes more expensive.

Factories struggle.

Electricity generation may be disrupted.

Households face increasing costs.

And governments may confront shortages and civil unrest.

The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important because of its role in global energy transportation.

A renewed confrontation involving that waterway could produce significant economic consequences.

The same is true of sustained attacks against Russian energy infrastructure.

And disruptions affecting China could reverberate throughout the global economy.

Now consider the sequence in Revelation chapter 6.

After the red horse comes the black horse.

Verse 6 describes extraordinary prices for wheat and barley.

Many interpreters associate this imagery with scarcity, famine, and economic hardship.

The relationship between war and shortages is obvious.

War disrupts agriculture, transportation, energy, manufacturing, and commerce.

I am not claiming that today's inflation fulfills the third seal.

But the sequence deserves attention.

The red horse is associated with the removal of peace. The black horse is associated with scarcity. The pale horse follows with death.

That progression is profoundly sobering.

In my two-part investigative series, Fortress America: Governments Are Preparing for War. Is Your Family Prepared to Survive?, I examined the growing emphasis on emergency preparedness.

Numerous governments have encouraged citizens to maintain emergency food, water, medicines, and other essential supplies.

The European Commission has promoted preparedness for at least 72 hours of disruption.

Canadian authorities have likewise encouraged household emergency readiness.

I have also examined reports concerning military installations and their ability to operate during extended infrastructure disruptions.

Emergency guidance does not prove that governments know a world war is imminent.

But it does demonstrate that officials recognize the importance of resilience during emergencies.

I believe families should take that responsibility seriously.

Preparedness is not a rejection of faith.

Joseph stored grain before famine.

Proverbs commends foresight.

And Jesus instructed His followers to watch.

Families should consider how they would obtain drinking water, food, medicine, heat, and essential supplies during an extended emergency.

They should examine their dependence on electricity, transportation, and ordinary commerce.

They should maintain appropriate communications plans and make provisions for vulnerable family members.

Backup heating and power systems must be used safely.

Preparedness should be practical, lawful, and proportionate.

The objective is not panic.

It is prudence.

Now I want to return to the biblical interpretation that has been central to my warnings.

Daniel chapter 8 describes a ram with two horns and a he-goat approaching from the west.

The goat attacks the ram with extraordinary force.

The ram cannot withstand the assault.

And the goat becomes exceedingly powerful.

Then, at the height of its strength, the great horn is broken.

The angel Gabriel identifies the ram with Media and Persia.

And then he makes an extraordinary statement:

The conventional historical interpretation identifies the goat with ancient Greece under Alexander the Great.

Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, and his empire was subsequently divided.

That historical correspondence is important.

But I have argued that the prophecy may also possess an end-time application.

And here is why.

When Gabriel approaches Daniel to explain the vision, he declares:

Then, in verse 19, Gabriel states:

These statements are central to my interpretation.

Gabriel does not merely identify the ancient kingdoms.

He explicitly connects the vision with the time of the end.

Traditional interpreters often understand this language in relation to the later period of the Greek kingdoms and the events involving Antiochus IV Epiphanes, while others see an additional future fulfillment.

I believe the language warrants serious examination of a possible end-time application.

And there is another important passage.

Daniel 11:40 begins:

Daniel 12:4 likewise instructs Daniel to shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end.

The repeated emphasis on the end-time period is one reason I believe these prophecies may have implications beyond their ancient historical setting.

My interpretation rests upon a distinction I believe deserves serious consideration.

The angel identifies the goat as the king of Grecia.

Ancient Greece is historically associated with the emergence of democracy.

The very word democracy derives from Greek.

The United States is the world's dominant modern power identified with constitutional representative democracy, despite its republican form of government.

America has become the leading military, economic, and geopolitical champion of the modern democratic order.

In that sense, I believe America may be understood symbolically as the modern king of Greece—the dominant king of the political tradition that originated in ancient Greece.

I am not claiming that the Hebrew text literally names the United States.

Nor am I suggesting that the angel explicitly defines Greece as democracy.

The text identifies Greece as a kingdom.

My argument is that the historical identity of Greece, combined with Gabriel's references to the time of the end, permits consideration of whether the modern dominant power associated with Greek democracy could fulfill an additional prophetic role.

Under that interpretation, America is the end-time king of Greece.

Iran occupies the territory of ancient Persia.

The goat approaches from the west.

And the goat attacks the ram with extraordinary force.

Consider the military implications of the phrase:

I have suggested that this could symbolically correspond to a modern military assault conducted predominantly through aircraft, missiles, and other long-range weapons without the need for a large ground invasion.

That is an interpretive possibility, not an explicit statement about modern aviation.

But the correspondence deserves examination.

Daniel describes the goat becoming exceedingly powerful before its great horn is broken.

Then four horns arise.

Gabriel explains:

Historically, the passage corresponds to the division of Alexander's empire.

But if there is an additional end-time fulfillment involving America, the implications are extraordinary.

Could the United States achieve a devastating military victory over Iran, only to experience a catastrophic weakening or fragmentation afterward?

Could the great horn represent the dominant American power structure?

Could four successor powers emerge from a fractured geopolitical order?

I cannot claim to know precisely how such an event would unfold.

But the biblical sequence is unmistakable.

Victory.

Greatness.

Then the breaking of the great horn.

If America is the end-time king of Greece, a victory over Iran may not represent the beginning of lasting security. It may precede the greatest national catastrophe in American history.

That is the warning I have repeatedly emphasized.

Isaiah chapter 10 provides an important biblical parallel.

God describes Assyria as an instrument of His judgment.

Yet Assyria becomes arrogant.

Its ruler boasts of his military power.

And God declares that He will punish Assyria for its pride.

The lesson is unmistakable.

God can use an unrighteous nation to judge another unrighteous nation.

But the instrument of judgment does not thereby become righteous.

God may subsequently judge that instrument for its own wickedness.

This is why I reject the idea that American military success would prove divine approval of Donald Trump.

And I reject the idea that Israeli military success would prove divine approval of Benjamin Netanyahu.

The righteousness of a government is not established by its military victories.

God judges arrogance, oppression, injustice, and bloodshed.

Zechariah 12:3 describes Jerusalem becoming a burdensome stone to the nations.

I believe the growing confrontation involving Israel deserves examination in light of this prophecy.

But Scripture does not establish that every action taken by the modern Israeli government is righteous.

Nor does criticism of Netanyahu justify collective condemnation of Jewish people.

Israel's government is responsible for its decisions.

America's government is responsible for its own decisions.

And both must be held accountable for conduct that violates the law or the moral principles they claim to uphold.

God's judgment is not determined by political allegiance.

I have previously examined Revelation 6:12–14, including the great earthquake, the movement of mountains and islands, and the extraordinary cosmic disturbances associated with the Sixth Seal.

Those studies remain available to readers.

But I believe something earlier in the chapter deserves more immediate attention.

Before the Sixth Seal comes the red horse.

Before the extraordinary cosmic disturbances comes the removal of peace from the earth.

And before the imagery of widespread death comes the rider carrying the great sword.

The military developments unfolding today do not establish that the second seal has been opened.

But they make its warning profoundly relevant.

The United States and Iran remain in a dangerous confrontation.

Israel's political leadership faces extraordinary uncertainty.

Russia and NATO are approaching increasingly dangerous military circumstances.

China continues applying pressure around Taiwan.

And the possibility of multiple simultaneous conflicts is becoming a serious concern.

Could these developments be preparing the world for the fulfillment of Revelation 6:4?

I believe that possibility deserves careful consideration.

Readers familiar with The Prophecy Tribune know that my concerns did not begin after the 2026 midterms.

I have repeatedly examined the relationship between American foreign policy, Israel, Iran, constitutional government, and biblical prophecy.

Among my earlier articles are:

I have also warned in my book, The 2026 Midterms: How America Can Pull Back From the Brink, that America must restore genuine constitutional accountability before its political divisions produce even greater consequences.

I believe the warnings contained in those writings deserve renewed attention.

Jesus warned His followers about wars and rumors of wars.

Christ did not command His followers to panic.

He commanded them to watch.

Christians must distinguish between verified developments and speculation.

We must examine events carefully.

We must refuse to excuse wrongdoing because it is committed by a political leader we support.

And we must recognize that our ultimate allegiance belongs to Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul wrote:

Political hatred is not righteousness.

Blind loyalty to a president is not righteousness.

And celebrating the suffering of innocent people is not righteousness.

We should pray for peace, demand lawful accountability, and prepare prudently for possible emergencies.

Families should consider their needs for food, water, medicine, heating, communication, and other essential supplies.

Preparedness should be sensible and safe.

It should not be driven by panic or by claims that a particular catastrophe is certain to occur.

Consider where we stand.

Donald Trump has lost Congress.

Benjamin Netanyahu has lost his governing parliamentary majority.

Trump faces the prospect of investigations and impeachment.

Netanyahu is already on trial for corruption and remains subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant.

Both have political opponents who want them removed from power.

Both have been central figures in the military confrontation with Iran.

And both could face devastating consequences if lawful investigations establish serious wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, American military capabilities are reportedly being positioned near the Iranian theater.

Russia and NATO remain locked in an increasingly dangerous confrontation.

China continues pressuring Taiwan.

Energy infrastructure is under attack.

And the international order appears increasingly unstable.

I cannot know what Trump or Netanyahu intends to do next.

I cannot establish that either leader intends to exploit a future attack or deliberately provoke a wider war to preserve political power.

But I believe the possibility that political desperation could influence military decisions is one of the most dangerous concerns confronting the world today.

Two politically endangered leaders possess enormous influence over military forces capable of igniting a much larger war.

And if the United States is indeed the end-time king of Greece described in Daniel chapter 8, as I have proposed, then a devastating victory over Iran could precede the breaking of the great horn.

The prophecy does not end with the goat's victory.

The great horn is broken.

Four lesser kingdoms arise.

And the prophetic narrative continues toward the time of the end.

At the same time, Revelation 6:4 describes a rider who is given power to take peace from the earth.

I am deeply concerned that the military preparations and escalating confrontations now unfolding could be leading toward the kind of worldwide conflict described by that verse.

I do not claim to know when the red horse will ride.

But I believe the warning is too important to ignore.

The question is no longer merely whether Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu will survive their political and legal crises.

The question is whether the world is approaching a catastrophic war that could transform nations, devastate economies, and cost countless innocent lives.

And if such a war begins, congressional investigations and political elections may suddenly seem insignificant compared with the destruction unfolding around us.

That is why I am urging readers to watch developments involving America, Iran, Israel, Russia, China, and NATO closely.

Prepare your households prudently.

Demand constitutional accountability.

Pray for peace.

And never surrender your spiritual discernment to a political party, a president, or a foreign government.

I believe the world may be approaching the conditions preceding the rider on the red horse.

And I believe the time to warn people is before catastrophe strikes—not afterward.

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 https://www.theprophecytribune.com/

Editorial note: The prophetic interpretations and assessments of potential military escalation are the author's opinions. Reported military movements do not independently establish plans for an attack. Allegations of criminal wrongdoing require evidence and appropriate legal proceedings.