Cataclysmic Silence on the Middle East

 

Badlands Media

Cataclysmic Silence

Trump, Biden and Harris on the Middle East

Ryan DeLarme Aug 6

READ IN APP

The Middle East is currently experiencing significant turmoil, and as Christian Zionists who advocate for "America First" are likely drawing the U.S. into a wider war, both presidential candidates and the current president have largely refrained from making any significant statements on the issue.

Could the apocalypse be upon us? Is the coming Messiah’s hypothetical landing pad in Israel more important than peace in the region? We'll review this sorry state of affairs both strategically and theologically. 

As most of you will undoubtedly be aware by the time this piece comes out, Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, was assassinated via missile strike last week in an attack that is obviously being attributed to Israel.

The assassination itself shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. Haniyeh has had a target on his back for sometime now, and, in the wake of the October 7 attacks, Israel did announce that it was going to attempt to assassinate all of Hamas's leadership, both political and military. But what makes the story particularly interesting is the timing and location of the assassination.

First, the location.

The attack is being seen as a particularly grievous offense because it was carried out in the heart of Iran’s capital, Tehran, during the inauguration of the new Iranian President. The execution of this attack during a presidential inauguration in the Iranian capital, which one would expect to be one of the most secure locations in the country, is an embarrassing security failure that is likely to trigger a major retaliatory response. More on that shortly.

Second, the timing.

The murder of Haniyeh came as Biden’s CIA director William Burns (WEF, Bilderberg, Munich Security Council) was in Rome meeting negotiators from Qatar and Egypt to discuss a ceasefire. Trey Yingst, in a surprisingly journalistic segment on “Fox and Friends,” laid things out in a way that addressed the gravity of the situation without the typical obligatory whitewashing to make Israel look good.

For those listening to the audio version, I’ll include the transcript below:

Trey Yingst: And I want to talk about this week and how rapidly things have changed on Sunday. CIA Director William Burns was in Rome, and he was meeting with Qatari and Egyptian negotiators. And the officials that we talked to were hopeful that a cease-fire agreement was about to happen between Israel and Hamas. Within a few hours after that meeting, Hamas released a statement saying the Israelis were going back on their promises and those conversations started to fall apart.

Now, just days later, the leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, the head negotiator for the organization, was killed in a targeted assassination in Tehran. This is an indication that cease-fire talks are basically off the table, and I do want to just quickly read you a statement from the Qatari prime minister, the man who has been responsible for a lot of the negotiations taking place, and he had an extensive statement this morning but he asks one question here, and it's an important question in all of this.

He says, “How can mediation succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on the other side?”

An end to the war in Gaza is not going to happen. In the immediate aftermath of the killing of the top official from Hamas, you still have more than 100 hostages inside Gaza. No end in sight. No diplomatic solution is now on the table to end the conflict there. As you noted, there are tens of thousands of Israelis displaced in the northern part of this country. 

In case you didn’t catch it, Yingst referred to Haniyeh as a “head negotiator.”

I only mention this because it seems, and maybe it’s just me, that if you assassinate one side of an ongoing negotiation, that’ll probably complicate the negotiations a bit, right? It calls into question whether these negotiations were ever seriously on the table at all.

Naturally, the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei (not to be confused with the Ayatollah of Rocknrolla), has ordered retaliation directly against Israel due to how damaging this strike is to the national honor of Iran.

Of course, our greatest ally never comes out and takes credit for their frequent cloak-and-dagger activities, but I don’t think anyone is refuting that Israel carried out this assassination, and certainly, they aren’t denying it either.

For anyone who balks at my assertion that Israel has historically had no qualms with committing deadly and subversive operations, I’d point to the Lavon Affair as but one of many such cases where our greatest ally partook in behavior we’d consider detestable were it coming from any other nation.

The Lavon Affair, which took place in October of 1954, was a botched Mossad false flag operation in which a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American, and British-owned targets in Alexandria and Cairo, but were caught red-handed before the operation could be carried out. The purpose of this operation was to instigate conflict between Egypt and the West, while also motivating Britain to maintain a military presence in the Suez Canal.

Real Godly stuff, am I right?

Despite the undisputable evidence, Israel denied its involvement for over 50 years, until 2005, when then-Israeli President Moshe Katsav decided to honor the three surviving members with certificates of appreciation. The USS Liberty incident, a false flag that killed 34 and injured 171 American soldiers, serves as another example of the West's cover-up of fatal Israeli skullduggery.

I only bring these examples up to highlight the fact that when Mossad, Shin Bet, or the IDF carry out morally reprehensible acts, they tend to just deny it, and in turn, the Western governments allow them to get away with it, only acknowledging their misdeeds once substantial time has passed, if at all. That is exactly what seems to be happening with the assassination of Haniyeh.

And to be clear, I’m not saying that the murder of a single member of the Hamas leadership is comparable to the deaths of American soldiers on the USS Liberty, but when you consider that this assassination will likely cause the region to move towards a greater conflict, one that will inevitably lead to military and civilian casualties—not to mention that it was carried out while feigning interest in a ceasefire agreement—the situation begins to take on much more gravity than the simple killing of one extremist.

Anticipating Greater Conflict

The deadly state of affairs in the Middle East has been characterized by a series of escalations, beginning with the tragic but preventable events of October 7th. Of course, we’re ignoring the preceding decades of atrocities and building tension, but for the sake of simplicity, let's start with 10/7.

There were the initial attacks by Hamas, followed by Israel’s sustained response, the sending of American carrier strike groups into the Eastern Mediterranean to provide tactical support and to intimidate Iran and its proxies from escalating the conflict into a wider war, the outbreak of war in the Red Sea with the Houthis, Hezbollah just itching to rain missiles on Tel Aviv, and now we have the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran to potentially act as the inciting incident—the striking of the match—so to speak, that will ignite the powder keg that is the Middle East.

Now we not only have the Ayatollah assuring us that a response is imminent, but Hezbollah is testing out its missile systems by hitting various targets in northern Israel. This idea that Hezbollah is an insignificant force is highly misleading; it has tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of missiles aimed at various Israeli cities.

The most notable aspect of all this? The deafening, cataclysmic silence of Western leadership regarding this highly volatile situation.

Biden has been largely kept out of sight since the debate, after which he was summarily forced out of the race by the Democrat establishment.

In my attempt to find literally anything regarding Biden’s stance on the assassination, I found a public appearance where he managed, as always, to avoid any questions, and I also found a rather curt statement regarding an alleged phone call that he and Kamala apparently had with Netanyahu in the aftermath.

The public appearance was a press conference meant to celebrate the release of several hostages by Russia, something the corporate news media is treating as some heroic deed on the part of Biden, as if he parachuted into the Russian prison and freed the hostages himself. The truth is that the release was part of a large, multinational deal to exchange prisoners, largely initiated by Putin in an effort to bring home Russians.