Two tragic moments, ten years apart. The post The country singer oddly connected to the deaths of both Hank Williams and Patsy Cline first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Initially, there was polling which indicated that more Americans were for the airstrike campaign, which took out Iranian tyrant Ali Khamenei and several of his top lieutenants, not to mention a host of key political, military, and intelligence facilities, and continues in a clear effort to facilitate regime change in that beleaguered country. But polling since indicates that isn’t the consensus. More respondents indicate they’re opposed to President Trump’s decision to unleash the whirlwind on the Iranian regime than for it. I could give a dissertation on the quality and efficacy of modern polling in an era when our phones are deluged with calls and text solicitations, and we are hounded with spam of every kind. I don’t need to; you already know. I will note, as I noted in a recent column, that polling gold-standard Gallup has confessed to getting a puny 5 percent response rate to its own polling, and if that’s all Gallup is getting, there isn’t much of a reason to believe any polling organization can honestly claim to capture the will of the people. (RELATED: Ten Thoughts on Operation Epic Fury and Its Aftermath) That said, I think I’m on relatively firm ground when I say that the reaction to the strikes over the weekend so far is more muted and mixed than enthusiastic. My own position is that the strikes were inevitable. Not because of anything having to do with Donald Trump or neocon warmongering at the Pentagon, or Israel and its influence on American policy, or any of that. For 47 years, we have attempted to normalize relations with the Iranians based on some very simple and reasonable demands… The strikes were inevitable because sooner or later they had to happen. For 47 years, we have attempted to normalize relations with the Iranians based on some very simple and reasonable demands — that they and their proxies stop killing, maiming, and capturing our citizens, and that they stop threatening our nuclear annihilation while pursuing the means to achieve that aim. (RELATED: War With Iran: Justified Strike, Uncertain Horizon) Iran proved intransigent on both accounts. And for the benefit of the Left, who suddenly believes that American history began when Trump descended that escalator in Manhattan to announce his first presidential run, no — this wasn’t unprovoked, and it wasn’t a war we initiated. This war was initiated back in 1979, and our prosecution of it has been an on-and-off, mostly off, endeavor for all of that time. What happened over the weekend was simply Trump deciding, for several quite apparent reasons, to begin prosecuting it decisively so as to end the 47-year war. They won’t accept this, of course — and the chief reason is that they’ve already chosen sides in the 47-year conflict with the mullahs. The side they chose is not the American one. (RELATED: The Democrats’ Epic Fury Over Iran Strikes) And an intelligent observer will note that the nature of war has changed a lot over the past century. War isn’t just kinetic — it’s economic, it’s political, it’s cultural, and when it involves the United States of America, it’s almost always asymmetrical. What I mean by that is you won’t face down an Iranian army with tanks and guns on a field of battle, just like you won’t face that challenge from Venezuela or Cuba. They know they can’t win that, so they will fight you in other ways. With Iran, terrorism is the general weapon of choice, with Israel as the general victim of choice. With Venezuela, before Trump acted to take down Nicolás Maduro and, in so doing, wind down that long-term asymmetrical conflict, the weapon of choice was political and then criminal, as the Maduro regime was consolidating the cocaine trade under its control. (RELATED: Why the Isolationist Wing Is Wrong: Trump’s Maduro Takedown Is Pure America First, Not Nation-Building) That we’ve gone kinetic with Iran is our own form of asymmetrical warfare. We might not have an effective deterrent to Iranian terrorism, but they certainly don’t have an effective counter to the death from above we are capable of raining on them with surgical precision. Terrorism reached its zenith on 9/11, to be sure, and it changed American culture in lots of ways worthy of lamentation, but in the big picture, terrorism is an irritant much more than it is decisive. What’s left of the Iranian regime is beginning to realize this as its flailing response has now hit no less than 10 of its neighboring states, all of whom have stepped up their level of irritation to that of belligerence toward the mullahs. For the benefit of those on the Right who are furious about the strikes as a violation of the America First principles they say they voted for, however, the response should be more nuanced and comprehensive. If you’re Generation X and above, this is easier to understand. Your frame of reference begins in 1979, not in 2015. You understand that we’ve been in direct conflict with that regime for most or all of your life. But if you’re younger, and your experiences with the Iranian threat tell you this is more of a Jewish/Israeli problem — and if your worldview is being shaped by the revelations in the Epstein files and other harbingers of outsized Jewish/Israeli influence on American policy, you’re less likely to understand the long game here. You might take into consideration that the Arabs were, for more or less the first time, supportive of the effort to take out that regime. Both because they understood that it was realistic for it to be deposed, and that they saw the bright possibility for a prosperous future on the other side of its demise. That makes this much less of a Jewish thing and more of a strategic thing benefiting everyone. (RELATED: Why Iranians Have Unified Around Reza Pahlavi) Of course, none of this matters unless the campaign unleashed late Friday night is successful in removing the regime — or, more specifically, in creating the conditions by which the Iranian people themselves remove the regime. If that project is successful, almost literally everything changes in American politics and world politics as well. Here I’ll reference the great Glenn Harlan Reynolds, who, in a Substack post on Monday, noted that Trump’s approach to actually solving problems rather than monetizing the discussion of them might be putting the latter approach out of business… In fact, Trump’s approach across the board, which has brought him success after success in his first 13 months back in office, is to solve problems the way the guys in the bar say they would do it. Too much illegal immigration? Close the border and deport the illegals. Problems with Iran? Kill their leaders and encourage a revolution. Venezuela shipping drugs and gangs to the U.S.? Capture their leader and encourage his successor to cooperate or share his fate. You can just do things. The thing is, though, that there’s a subtlety in this approach. Just doing things turns out to work. But if you take a step back from these actions of Trump’s, the big picture shows a pretty coherent strategy. Trump wants to weaken China without going to war with China. He has now cut off two major suppliers of oil to the PRC, which produces hardly any oil of its own. (It’s worse than that, because China wasn’t paying for that oil with dollars, and now it will need dollars to buy oil elsewhere.) That applies a squeeze to an already squeezed CCP, and will make Xi’s position, domestically and internationally, weaker. Also the military excellence recently displayed has to inspire second, third, and fourth thoughts about invading Taiwan. Reynolds makes the prediction, assuming the strikes ultimately prove successful, that this will all redound famously to Trump’s benefit. That would necessitate that the more isolationist elements of the Right will come around. It’s hard to imagine they wouldn’t, in the event that happy Iranians choose a pro-Western, pro-peace government which declares America a friend and gravitates to the good-guy side of the global equation. But most Americans aren’t convinced, and I wouldn’t argue they should be. Not yet. It isn’t enough to make a strategic choice. The execution of that choice can’t be botched. It has to produce the desired results. I go back to the initial crisis, which began the 47-year conflict between the U.S. and the Iranian regime. Jimmy Carter, whose feckless foreign policy brought the mullahs to power in the first place (Khamenei’s predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini, in exile in Paris before spearheading the revolution against the Shah, flat-out lied to American and European politicians and journalists in claiming he and his regime would be more Western than the Shah, and then showed himself to be the opposite), sought to use the military for a way out of the hostage crisis. That was probably the best decision he made, but the ill-fated Desert One expedition, which was to free the U.S. embassy hostages from the grasp of Khomeini’s thugs, ended in humiliation. (RELATED: Reagan’s Shadow, Trump’s Moment) And these strikes could similarly end in humiliation. I’m not predicting that. But the risk can’t be ignored. The regime could survive. As the hours and days move forward, and it becomes more obvious that our use of relatively cheap one-way drones (our LUCAS system is a knock-off of an Iranian drone platform which was itself a knockoff of an American design, and LUCAS drones are far cheaper to manufacture than are the Iranian Shahed model, a fact which is probably the most notable item in this entire campaign) makes for a different reality than anyone currently recognizes, it seems unlikely that Iran’s government will remain extant for much longer. But it could. Or what replaces it could be just as bad or worse. That’s unlikely, of course, but we don’t know. Matt Walsh, who has become a skeptic of this campaign for a number of reasons, some well-reasoned and others not so much, said something worth recognizing… What exactly is the end game? “The Iranian people rise up and take control of their government”? Okay what does that mean exactly? Which people? How are they taking control? What happens after they do take control? Are we sure the new people, whoever they are, will be better than… — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 1, 2026 Walsh isn’t wrong. And then there is the prospect of having to follow these strikes with ground troops in order to accomplish the stated aims of his campaign, which becomes the real quagmire we’re all so anxious to avoid. The proof is in the pudding. And we shall know them by their fruits. We don’t know yet what those will be. And we should be skeptical until we do. READ MORE from Scott McKay: Ten Thoughts on Operation Epic Fury and Its Aftermath Five Quick Things: John Thune Is Blowing It SOTU 2026: Now There Are Truly Two Americas

It was a lunchroom conversation most could relate to with a sigh. “I was at the grocery store last night,” one coworker said, shaking her head, “and my two bags cost me $45, and I didn’t buy any meat.” By coincidence and perhaps a bite of economic symmetry, the headline staring back at me from the Business and Finance section of The Wall Street Journal was telling: “The Beef Industry Has a Message for Consumers: Get Used to High Prices.” The whole episode summoned the memory of that trio of elderly ladies in 1984 staring at a lonely hamburger patty and delivering with the flat resignation of those who have seen enough nonsense for one lifetime with deadpan timing: “Where’s the beef?” It was a punchline that launched a cultural catchphrase calling out anything lacking substance, and four decades later, the line still stings. Today, it echoes throughout supermarket aisles where the question is less quip and more lament. “Where’s the beef?” is now economic anxiety disguised as nostalgia. “Where’s the beef?” is now economic anxiety disguised as nostalgia. It doubles as commentary on the economy, as 1980s satire returns not as a joke but with a literal answer: it is on the shelf as a $15 pack of ground chuck, auditioning like a luxury handbag up for auction at Sotheby’s in Manhattan. According to the Journal, ranchers have been dwindling their herds for decades because maintaining cattle has become more expensive than selling them. Add in transportation costs, processing chokepoints, and inflation, and the result is fewer cattle, a tighter meat supply, and higher prices. The sticker shock is not just about economics; it is very existential. Beef is woven into the American fabric. The Fourth of July without beef is like Christmas without lights or Congress without dysfunction. Burgers are practically a national sacrament along with backyard grilling, football tailgates, and summer cookouts. They are not just meals, they are rituals. When the price of beef climbs out of reach, it hits a cultural nerve like a piece of Americana has been repossessed. “Where’s the beef?” resurfaces with bite as it captures something essential about the American psyche: we want means and value, not shrinking portions and rising prices. Whether aimed at politicians, corporations, or the grocery aisle, “Where’s the beef?” is a demand for substance, fairness, and honesty. A burger was once the cheapest, most democratic food in America’s bounty and the great equalizer on a sesame‑seed bun. Today it is an artifact of a bygone era, a relic from when a family could feed itself without taking out a small loan. And we are poorer for its disappearance, not just in the wallet but in spirit. Making inroads within the American diet are plant‑based meat alternatives. This is not because folks want to eat like a rabbit on Ozempic, but because real beef has priced itself into the witness protection program. (RELATED: Saving the Planet by Eating Fruit and Whole Grains Is Possible — If You’re Dumb Enough) “Where’s the beef?” is no longer a joke; rather, it is a national mood where the erosion of purchasing power makes the daily grind feel like a nonstop negotiation. The beef is still on the shelf, but the character of the slogan lingers. You can’t get any more proof than when a Peruvian native and proud American laments the price of home-grown beef in a company lunchroom at high noon. When an immigrant looks at a grocery receipt and finds it reading like a ransom note for the very foods that once symbolized American abundance, the message lands harder than any campaign slogan: the only thing America has in abundance now is sticker shock. READ MORE from Greg Maresca: EPA Retires Its Crystal Ball, Lets America Exhale (Carbon Included) Mr. Softee’s America College Football: CFP Punts on Expansion in 2026

Florida A&M University, a historically black university with 7,800 undergraduate students, announced last month that it will consolidate its black studies degree with its history, philosophy, and religion degrees in an effort to ensure all students can find a well-paying job after graduation. Courses on offer at Florida A&M University this semester include “Black Beauty: Women’s Images and National Identity,” “Environmental History and Political Ecology of the African Diaspora,” and “Sociology of the Black Experience.” The university says on its website that students in the black studies program “examine fundamental concepts such as the social, legal, and economic systems that came to be as a result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and African migration.” Many students were outraged and saw the degree’s removal as the outcome of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s war on DEI. This makes sense, given that black studies programs have historically shared the philosophical grounding of DEI ideology and focused on issues such as intersectionality, implicit bias, and structural racism. Florida A&M disputed that the decision to consolidate the program was politically motivated, saying that it was focused on helping students find success after graduation. (RELATED: College Fine Arts and Theater Programs Are About to Be In Trouble) “If our number one customer is not hearing and understanding why we are making decisions, it feels like it’s an attack,” Michael White, the vice chair of the Florida A&M University Board of Trustees, told the Tallahassee Democrat. “I do stand with the students … but also, I want to make sure our students are graduating with well-paying jobs and we have viable programs that are able to sustain themselves.” Unsaid in White’s explanation is that Florida A&M has evidently determined that the continuance of black studies as a standalone program would not ensure that all students graduate with well-paying jobs. The university’s provost further explained that the black studies program was consolidated so as to meet the Florida Board of Governors’ performance guidelines, which ask universities to ensure programs award at least 30 degrees over a three-year period. The African American studies program had only graduated 16 students over the past three years. Still, adhering to that 30-degree metric is voluntary. (RELATED: Gender Studies Got So Unhinged That Texas A&M Shut It Down) In a Feb. 13 statement titled “Institutional Statement on Academic Program Prioritization,” the university said that it has “no plans to eliminate or diminish scholarship” in the area of African American studies. It added, “Any programmatic adjustment reflects structural alignment only and does not change our enduring commitment to this field of study.” Some students were not on board with the university’s reason for ending the black studies major. “Education has become a business in this country, but the value of our education should not be quantified by these metrics like ‘productivity,’” Justin Jordan, the president of the university’s Students for a Democratic Society chapter, told WFSU. As black studies programs across the country face scrutiny alongside DEI — given that they essentially provide an education in DEI — the fact that these programs’ graduates have lower salaries has not strengthened their positions. A 2023 report by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that the average starting salary for 2022 graduates of “Ethnic, Cultural Minority, Gender, and Group Studies” programs was $47,502. The overall starting salary that year was $60,028. Some colleges’ ethnic studies programs have worse outcomes. According to the Chronicle on Higher Education, the average median earnings for graduates of Spelman College’s “Ethnic Cultural Minority Gender and Group Studies” program is $25,137. Spelman is considered to be one of the most elite historically black colleges in the country. Florida A&M University is not the only university to end its black studies programs following the backlash against DEI. Last year, Indiana University Bloomington closed its black studies program and more than 100 other programs after the state Legislature passed a law requiring a minimum number of graduates for a public degree program. Kennesaw State University also announced last year that it would “deactivate” its black studies program. Further, the University of Iowa announced last week that it is proposing to close its African American studies major due to low enrollment. Still, the vast majority of black studies programs, which are often centers of DEI activism and teach tenets of DEI ideology, have so far survived the growing backlash against DEI. READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: Bill Clinton Has Much to Answer for on Epstein Newsom’s Ticking Time Bomb: Dana Williamson The Disturbing Doctor Touring the Country to Promote Her Career of Third-Trimester Abortions Image licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Let’s recall. The date: Nov. 4, 1979. The place: The American Embassy in Tehran, Iran. On that day, in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution that had overthrown the Shah, followers from the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line descended on the U.S. Embassy. Supported by the leader of the Revolution, one Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the students took 66 hostages from the Embassy staff, both diplomatic personnel and civilians. (RELATED: Reagan’s Shadow, Trump’s Moment) The flashpoint was the Jimmy Carter administration granting asylum to the cancer-ridden Shah of Iran for treatment in New York. The student revolutionaries held the American hostages for 444 days. At one point, Carter authorized a U.S. military rescue attempt. The mission failed dramatically. This was a presidential election year in the United States, and the hostage crisis became a daily issue in the campaign between President Carter and the GOP nominee, former California Governor Ronald Reagan. Without doubt, the ongoing crisis contributed to the hard-liner Reagan’s landslide 44-state victory over Carter. As if to humiliate Carter, negotiations for the release of the hostages finally succeeded on Jan. 19, 1981, the day before Carter was to leave office. Dramatically, with Reagan literally sworn in and giving his inaugural address on Jan. 20, the hostages were released to American authorities, then flown out of Iran first to Algeria and then to a U.S. airbase in Germany where now former President Carter had been sent by the new President Reagan to greet them and escort them first to Ireland (for refueling) and then on to the U.S. and the National Guard base in Newburgh, New York. Days later, after health check-ups and rest, the hostages were given a huge ticker tape parade in New York City. But the hostility of the Iranian government never went away. Over the ensuing years, there were various attacks on America in one form or another. Examples: In April of 1983, the Iran-based Islamic Jihad organized a suicide car bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. In October of that same year, there was another Iran-inspired suicide car bombing, this one again at the Beirut U.S. Embassy. This attack killed 241 U.S. military personnel. Civilian airliners were hijacked through the years, one of them in 1984 diverted to Tehran, where two Americans were tortured and murdered. On and on this has gone, with Iranian murderous assaults on various Americans in 1985, 1989, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and on into the 21st century, with Iranian attacks on Americans from 2001 on through the years to just last year in 2025, when American bases in Syria and Iraq were attacked. Is it any wonder the Trump White House recently headlined this: “Peace Through Strength: President Trump Launches Operation Epic Fury to Crush Iranian Regime, End Nuclear Threat.” (RELATED: Iran’s Fatal Miscalculation) In short, the reaction of President Trump in authorizing Operation Epic Fury to, in the words of the White House, “eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, destroy its ballistic missile arsenal, degrade its proxy terror networks, and cripple its naval forces” is more than understandable. In all those years since 1979 — a full 47 years — Iran has never stopped with its terrorist activities. And without doubt, the failure to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons would, one can easily suspect, result in a nuclear attack on both America and its European allies. (RELATED: Ten Thoughts on Operation Epic Fury and Its Aftermath) In short? As with President Ronald Reagan, President Trump understands the core principle behind the phrase “peace through strength.” It is crystal clear that the good people of Iran — and surely there are some — must take control of their government ASAP. And put an end to what is effectively a death cult that rules Iran now and has done so since the Iranian revolution in 1979. (RELATED: Why Iranians Have Unified Around Reza Pahlavi) In the meantime? Stay tuned. And a few prayers would be in order as well. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: Are Democrats on the Trump Payroll? Susan Rice Goes Full Fascist Trump’s Legacy: Global Peace

Israelis woke at 8:30 AM on Saturday to the sound of a nationwide siren. There was no imminent threat. It was the Home Front Command’s wake-up call to the nation that the Israeli military had carried out joint strikes with the United States earlier that morning against Iran, and to be on high alert for retaliation. (RELATED: Iran’s Fatal Miscalculation) Shabbat morning rituals were put aside momentarily in order to clean out the in-home bomb shelters of old furniture and storage items to make room for pillows, blankets, and cases of water. Public bomb shelters were unlocked and, as rehearsed last June, neighborhood residents claimed their corners and set up camp. (RELATED: America Visits Iran) Thirty hours later, by the close of Sunday evening, Israel’s “Operation Roaring Lion” had decimated Iran’s missile and air defense systems, taken out top Iranian military and government officials, including the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and had established air superiority over Tehran. But not without fatal collateral at home. (RELATED: The Line That Held on Iran)  The opening “Genesis” waves of Roaring Lion on Saturday morning included about 200 Israeli fighter jets carrying out the largest military flyover in Israeli Air Force history, dropping hundreds of munitions on military targets in western Iran. The operation was carried out jointly with the U.S. military. Israeli forces focused on targeting Iranian missile storage, production, and launch sites and air defense systems, while the U.S. targeted Iran’s nuclear program facilities and the headquarters and command centers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Ayatollah’s regime. The attack came on the heels of stalled talks between the U.S. and Iran, after Iran refused to agree to U.S. President Trump’s terms to dismantle its nuclear program, limit ballistic missile capabilities, and abandon its sponsorship of terrorist proxy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Since the so-called 12-Day war last June, Iran continued to advance and conceal its remaining nuclear assets, rehabilitate its missile arsenal (with the help of Russia and China), and finance, train, and arm regional proxies. (RELATED: When Will the U.S. Strike Iran?) Waves of Israeli and U.S. air strikes against Iran continued throughout Saturday night and into Sunday. By Sunday evening, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) had achieved complete air superiority over Tehran and had switched from deploying “standoff weapons,” such as guided missiles launched from a distance, to “stand-in” air-to-surface weapons for operating inside enemy airspace. In roughly 30 hours, the IAF had carried out 700 sorties and dropped over 2,000 munitions — around half of what was used in the entire 12-Day war in June — and could confirm the kills of numerous senior-level officials in the IRGC, and in the government, including Khamenei. The Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Katz, stated that “the tyrant Khamenei was eliminated in the opening strike of Operation Roaring Lion, along with other senior figures in the Iranian terror regime’s stronghold.” Iranian state television also confirmed the elimination of the Armed Forces Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi, Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Aziz Nasirzadeh, and Commander of the IRGC, Mohammad Pakpour. Toppling the regime’s leadership “will create the conditions for the brave Iranian people to take their destiny into their own hands,” stated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “The time has come for all parts of the people of Iran … to cast off the yoke of tyranny and bring about a free and peace-seeking Iran.” (RELATED: Why Iranians Have Unified Around Reza Pahlavi) The president went on to affirm that “this is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their country.” Trump posted that Khomenei “was unable to avoid our intelligence and highly sophisticated tracking systems and, working, closely with Israel, there was nothing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do.” The president went on to affirm that “this is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their country.” (RELATED: Ten Thoughts on Operation Epic Fury and Its Aftermath) Iranian retaliation began almost immediately. A senior Iranian official told Al Jazeera: “We are not surprised by the joint American-Israeli aggression, and we have a comprehensive response with no time limit. There are no red lines after this aggression, and everything is possible, including scenarios that were not previously considered.” The official concluded by threatening that “all American and Israeli assets and interests in the Middle East have become legitimate targets.” Repeated waves of missile and drone barrages against Israel, ranging between three and 20 munitions, started just before noon on Saturday, with reports of property damage from falling debris and shrapnel from the aerial interceptions. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) called up roughly 100,000 reservists as the conflict gained momentum over the weekend, to reinforce border security with Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. The Home Front Command also mobilized roughly 20,000 reservists for search and rescue efforts with the anticipation of escalating Iranian missile barrages. By Saturday night, the Magen David Adom rescue organization reported that roughly 89 people had been injured, indirectly from Iran’s missile attacks, mostly while rushing to shelter or from effects of falling shrapnel. By Saturday night, around 150 ballistic missiles were fired at Israel, and over a dozen drones. The IDF reported that some of the ballistic missiles were cluster bomb warheads, similar to those used last June. The warheads open on descent and disperse around 20 sub-munitions across a radius of around 5 miles. Many times, the cluster warheads can still actively disperse after the central missile has been intercepted, and cause significant death and damage, as experienced last June. The first Israeli casualties came on Saturday afternoon. A direct missile struck a Tel Aviv neighborhood, causing extensive damage to about forty buildings in the vicinity. Most residents had evacuated to nearby shelters in time, but one woman, a foreign caregiver, was killed as she did not manage to reach the bomb shelter. The older woman she was caring for was later extracted alive from the rubble. On Sunday afternoon, another direct hit occurred in Beit Shemesh, a city near Jerusalem, killing nine people, injuring 27, and burying numerous others in rubble. As promised, Iran’s reaction reached regional proportions. Iranian missiles and drones have been fired at U.S. and U.K. bases in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, and Oman, with civilian targets such as hotels and airports being hit as collateral. The Iranian Proxy terrorist group Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, also attacked northern Israel on Sunday night. “Hezbollah opened fire; it chose to start a campaign. It will pay a heavy price,” IDF spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin said as the IDF launched multiple attacks against Hezbollah on Monday morning across Lebanon and in Beirut. Monday afternoon was relatively calm compared to the weekend. But whether this should be perceived as a shifting tide in the war or a calm before the storm is too early to tell. READ MORE from Bennett Tucker: US–Iran Talks Only Lead to Uncertainty Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ May Actually Hinder the Gaza Peace Plan Israel on Alert Image licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.

by Joe Hoft, Joe Hoft: AbleChild can’t help but wonder why transgender individuals commit a disproportionate share of mass shooting attacks, and whether these attacks have anything to do with being prescribed mind-altering psychiatric drugs along with drugs associated with the transition process. According to a recent study conducted by the Crime Prevention and Research […]

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star: We have all heard that over the weekend American forces struck at Iran in a joint operation with Israeli military forces, killing the long-time “supreme leader”, Ayatollah Ali Khameni, and members of his immediate family, some of whom were rumored to be in the line of succession to […]

  Much of the narrative in the Old Testament of the Bible is interlinked with the history of ancient Egypt. Numerous Egyptian pharaohs appear in the Bible, some of them by name. The appearance of these regal names on artifacts from ancient Palestine informs our understanding of the chronology of ancient Palestine by linking it back to Egyptian chronology. But one Egyptologist, David Grohl, has argued that the current, conventional interpretation of the chronology of ancient Egypt is wrong, and that the Biblical evidence brings it forward by some three centuries. Could he be right?   Problems With the Conventional Chronology An example of pottery from New Kingdom Egypt, c. 14th century BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   New Kingdom Egypt, according to consensus among Egyptologists, began in the 16th century BCE and continued until the 11th century BCE. This chronology is largely based on examinations of ancient king lists and reign lengths, particularly from a 3rd-century BCE ancient historian called Manetho. The established dates for these Egyptian kings are also used to date sites outside of Egypt, as numerous Egyptian items and inscriptions have been found beyond its borders. When these items can be dated to the reign of a particular pharaoh and are found in a clear archaeological context, they serve as a useful dating tool. The Egyptians had regular contact with the nations of ancient Palestine, and as a result, it is primarily Egyptian chronology that establishes the chronology of the archaeology of Palestine.   This is significant because Palestine was the home of the ancient Israelite kings, such as David and Solomon. The Bible describes their activities in detail. However, according to Egyptologist David Rohl, we do not see any evidence of their reigns as described in the Bible when we use the conventional chronology provided by Egypt. David Rohl has proposed a New Chronology that aligns more closely with the Bible’s descriptions. How does this New Chronology work, and how does it supposedly fit the Bible better?   David Rohl’s Revised Chronology of Egypt Relief at the Karnak Temple depicting Shoshenq I conquering Israelite cities. Source: Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY 3.0, Olaf Tausch   The basic idea behind David Rohl’s New Chronology is that certain dynasties that appear as consecutive in Manetho’s king list were actually concurrent. The dynasties in question are those that belong to the Third Intermediate Period, which is commonly dated to 1070-664 BCE. By making these dynasties overlap, Rohl’s revised chronology shortens that period significantly. The result is that the dates of the New Kingdom of Egypt are brought forward by some three centuries. Consequently, the dates assigned to archaeological discoveries in ancient Palestine are adjusted by a corresponding 300 years, given that they are established by the Egyptian dates.   How does this revised chronology supposedly match the Bible better than the conventional chronology? The study of Bible history is filled with synchronisms, that is, identifications of Bible characters with figures who appear in records outside the Bible. One particularly important example is the identification of the Bible’s Pharaoh Shishak. He is the Egyptian king recorded as attacking the land of the Israelites shortly after King Solomon’s death, and he plundered Jerusalem’s wealth and took it back to Egypt. He has long been identified as Pharaoh Shoshenq I, a king conventionally dated to the 10th century BCE. A contemporary Egyptian monument confirms that he really did perform a major attack against the Israelites.   However, David Rohl argues that Shoshenq’s recorded activities do not match the Bible’s description of Shishak. In the Bible, Shishak is not specifically described as attacking the Northern Kingdom of Israel. He is only presented as attacking the Southern Kingdom of Judah. In contrast, according to proponents of the New Chronology, Shoshenq I seems to have avoided Judah and focused his attacks almost exclusively on Israel to the north.   Biblical Supports for Rohl’s Revised Chronology of Egypt Jubilee Relief of Ramesses the Great, c. 13th century BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   According to David Rohl, the Bible’s Shishak should not be identified with Shoshenq I. Rather, he should be identified with a king conventionally dated much earlier. Rohl argues that the famous Ramesses the Great, usually dated to the 13th century BCE, was the real Shishak of the Bible. Egyptian documents show that he engaged in a major campaign in ancient Palestine. In fact, he campaigned in this area several times, but on at least one occasion, he is specifically recorded as attacking Jerusalem. This would appear to match the Biblical narrative of Shishak. As for his name, Rohl notes that Ramesses the Great was known by the nickname “Shisha” in that region. On this basis, Rohl argues that the Biblical “Shishak” could be easily understood as a slight corruption of this nickname.   This revised chronology is supposedly supported by the Bible in a variety of other ways. For instance, the Bible describes King Solomon as an exceptionally wealthy ruler, the king of a mighty kingdom. According to the conventional chronology, Solomon’s reign corresponds to the archaeological period known as Iron Age IIA. This, according to David Rohl, was relatively impoverished. In contrast, the era usually dated some three centuries earlier, to the Palestine of the Late Bronze Age, was far wealthier and more impressive.   Additionally, Rohl argues that the Amarna Letters, commonly dated to the 14th century BCE, refer to figures whose careers match those of Saul and David in the Bible. Therefore, by bringing the chronology forward by some three centuries, these figures can be identified with the Biblical characters whose careers they supposedly match.   The Identification of Pharaoh Shishak Scarab with the name of Shoshenq I, c. 10th century BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   In some ways, the evidence for this theory might seem compelling. However, when we look more closely at the evidence, we can understand why the overwhelming majority of Egyptologists and Biblical historians have rejected it.   Starting with the identification of Pharaoh Shishak, is it really true that the campaign of Shoshenq I does not match that of the Bible’s Shishak? While it is sometimes claimed that Shoshenq mostly avoided Judah and focused his attacks almost exclusively on Israel, this is simply not true. In reality, the stele, which records Shoshenq’s campaign, mentions numerous locations all across the Southern Kingdom of Judah. One of these locations, Gibeon, is just next to Jerusalem. In fact, of the surviving place names on the list, more of them are in Judah than in Israel. The idea that Shoshenq I cannot be the Biblical Shishak on the basis that he avoided Judah and Jerusalem is emphatically not correct.   Some researchers argue that Shoshenq still cannot be Shishak on the basis that the Bible describes Shishak as having an alliance with the king of Israel. Since Shoshenq did attack Israel’s territory, that supposedly does not match. In reality, the Bible merely mentions that Jeroboam, who later became the king of Israel, fled to Shishak in Egypt during Solomon’s reign, only returning to his land after Solomon’s death. However, alliances change all the time, and the Bible does not reaffirm any relationship between Shishak and Jeroboam after that single earlier statement.   The Wealth of Solomon Six-chambered gate at Megiddo, built during Iron Age IIA, c. 10th century BCE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   What about the idea that Solomon’s reign does not fit the relatively impoverished Iron Age IIA, and would be better placed in the Late Bronze Age? Again, the evidence does not fit this conclusion when we look closer. The Bible tells us that the population of Israel flourished. It says that the people became like the grains of sand by the sea in Solomon’s reign. That is exactly what we find when we use the conventional chronology. During Iron Age IIA, there was a population explosion in ancient Palestine. Furthermore, the Bible specifically notes that Solomon fortified the cities of Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo. Archaeologists have found that all three of these cities were indeed fortified with a rare six-chambered gate during Iron Age IIA.   However, is there any evidence for Solomon’s great wealth in this era? Far from this being impoverished in comparison to the Late Bronze Age, archaeologists have found evidence of immense wealth in the traditional era of Solomon. For example, Iron Age silver hoards from the region represent the largest concentration of silver hoards in the ancient Near East. A study from 2013 examined silver hoards from ancient Palestine dating to between 1200 and 800 BCE. Their chemical analysis found that these almost exclusively originated from either Spain or Sardinia, both prime candidates for the Biblical Tarshish. This was the very site from which Solomon was sad to obtain his silver.   Other Problems With David Rohl’s Revised Chronology One of the Amarna Letters, sent from the king of Tyre to the king of Egypt, c. 14th century BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   From the aforementioned evidence, it is clear that the Bible’s description of Solomon’s reign better matches the conventional chronology than David Rohl’s revised chronology. However, what about the other points? For instance, does the Bible really support placing Saul and David in the Amarna Period?   If we were to identify the Bible’s David with the figure named Dadua in the Amarna Letters, this would result in serious problems for the Biblical narrative. Rohl’s chronology would place David in the reign of Seti I, the father of Ramesses the Great. However, the Bible presents David as having a grand kingdom over all of ancient Palestine, a kingdom that even extended into parts of Syria. Yet, the Egyptian Empire in the time of Pharaoh Seti I is known to have extended as far north as Syria as well. He ruled over the cities of Canaan. This leaves no space for King David.   Another crucial point is the fact that the Bible refers to the king of Egypt as merely “Pharaoh” in the writings traditionally attributed to Moses. This usage continues until the time of Shishak, who is the first pharaoh in the Bible to be mentioned by name. This corresponds almost exactly to contemporary Egyptian usage, but only when following the conventional chronology. The king of Egypt was referred to as “Pharaoh” in isolation during the New Kingdom. Then, early in the Third Intermediate Period, in approximately 1000 BCE, the records start referring to the king as “Pharaoh” along with the king’s personal name. This clear correspondence between Egyptian naming conventions and the Biblical usage of this term would break down if we follow Rohl’s New Chronology.   Which Chronology Does the Bible Really Support? A New Kingdom relief depicting a battle, c. 15th century BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art   In conclusion, does the Bible really support the idea that the chronology of Egypt should be brought forward by some three centuries? Or, rather, does the Bible better match the conventional chronology of Egypt?   David Rohl argues that the synchronism between the Bible’s Shishak and Egypt’s Shoshenq I is not a good match, and Shishak should rather be identified as Ramesses the Great. He argues this based on the idea that Shoshenq mostly ignored the Kingdom of Judah, but the truth is that Shoshenq captured numerous cities of Judah, just like the Bible describes Shishak as doing. Moreover, associating Shishak with Ramesses the Great would cause serious problems for the Bible’s narrative, as it would place King David’s reign over Israel at the same time as Seti I’s imperial rule over that very same territory; an impossible contradiction. We have also seen that the evidence from Iron Age IIA matches the Bible’s description of Solomon’s reign in all key aspects, including the population growth and abundance of silver. Finally, we have also seen that the Bible’s use of the term “Pharaoh” is a detail that strongly supports the conventional chronology over Rohl’s revised chronology.   Of course, the Bible is not the only yardstick used to assess the validity of David Rohl’s theory. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the Bible is concerned, the conventional chronology is more convincing than Rohl’s New Chronology.