by Carl Islam, LLM (Exon)(International Business Legal Studies), Diploma in Art Law (Institute of Art & Law) (London), Barrister & CMC Registered Mediator – Contentious Probate & Cultural Heritage Disputes – 1 EC Barristers, Temple, London.
The ongoing military operations in Iran and Lebanon have caused extensive and potentially irreversible environmental damage.
Following the escalation on 28 February 2026, when US and Israeli forces launched a joint campaign against Iran, the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) has documented over 300 incidents of environmental harm across the region.
Strikes on oil storage facilities and refineries in Tehran and other cities have created massive toxic plumes.
These fires have released particulate matter, sulphur compounds, and heavy metals, resulting in ‘black rain’- a mixture of soot and chemical fallout that poisons the air and soil.
Attacks on military bases and missile facilities have released highly toxic propellants (such as inhibited red fuming nitric acid), PFAS, and energetic compounds.
These ‘forever chemicals’ and toxins leach into groundwater and agricultural land, threatening long-term food security and public health.
Naval warfare and strikes on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf have led to significant oil spills.
The Strait of Hormuz, a critical biological corridor, faces nearly total annihilation of sensitive populations like hawksbill and green turtles, mirroring damage seen in past regional conflicts.
Large-scale aerial bombardments and the use of heavy military assets contribute millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) and greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.
Experts suggest the eventual reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure will further drive up these emissions, comparable to the annual output of entire small nations.
In southern Lebanon, continuous bombardment has scorched orchards and destroyed wildlife habitats.
Over one million people have been displaced, and the disruption of environmental governance makes post-war rehabilitation unlikely in the near future.
United Nations experts and groups like Greenpeace International have denounced the aggression, warning it meets the criteria for Ecocide.
The International Criminal Court has also been urged to investigate these environmental impacts under its new policy prioritizing environmental crimes.
The environment is a ‘bi-partisan’ and ‘Humanitarian’ issue because it affects the future of all life on this planet,
So, why are UK Parliamentarians not even discussing this?
Today, Trump threatened to blow-up the biggest gas field in the world.
So, why is the UN not discussing this?
Safeguarding the environment from future irreversible harm is a potential diplomatic ‘off-ramp’, i.e. by ensuring that the US and Israel do not ever launch an illegal war again, because of the potentially catastrophic environmental consequences for all humanity – which may involve the use of a nuclear weapon by either or both the US and Israel.
However, nobody is proposing ‘Humanitarian Mediation’, see the ‘Humanitarian Mediation’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk.
19.03.2026 (16:50) – About 30 minutes ago while hosting the Japaneese Prime Minsiter – Sanae Takaichi in the Oval Office, Trump said to her – ‘Who knows better about surprise than Japan? OK, why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor?’ He continued, ‘You believe in surprise, I think, much more so than us. And we had a surprise… because of that surprise, we knocked out… much more than we anticipated doing’. The comments occurred during a meeting regarding the ongoing conflict with Iran. A reporter asked why the United States had not informed allies like Japan in advance of its military strikes. Trump defended the lack of prior notice by emphasizing the necessity of the ‘element of surprise.’ So, logically, it appears that Trump just confirmed that the US was involved in the planning and execution of the suprise attack against Iran. That begs a question – before deciding to send the US to war, did Trump evaluate the ecological and environmental consequences of setting the Middle East of fire for the benefit of Israel?
In his resignation letter he wrote – ‘Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. … ’
In other words he appears to have just confirmed that:
(i) the US went to war with Iran for the cause of a ‘Greater Israel’, and not in America’s interest, i.e. that the US was manipulated into War with Iran by Israel; and
(ii) this llegal war is based upon ‘a lie’, that was manufactured by Israel and the media.
See also:
– ‘Trump counter-terrorism chief quits over Iran war, blaming Israel Joe Kent resigned as national counter-terrorism center director, saying Iran posed no imminent threat to the US’: https://lnkd.in/ehtRSFcd.
– ‘Trump’s counterterrorism chief, whose own wife was killed by ISIS, quits over Iran War saying Tehran posed ‘no imminent threat’ –https://lnkd.in/eSTHw7tj
A conclusion that may logically be drawn from what is written in Joe Kent’s Resignation Letter, is that this War was not only unecessary, i.e. it did not have to be fought, but that it also has no legal basis/justification whatsoever.
‘Today is the 20th
anniversary — to the day — of the publication on the internet of “The Israel
Lobby” in The London Review of
Books. Naturally, the Judge and I talked about the article and book
that Steve Walt and I wrote, focusing on the role that the lobby plays today —
as opposed to back in 2006 — in shaping the discourse about Israel as well as
US policy toward Israel.
I emphasized that the lobby’s
role in shaping policy remains as strong as ever, but that it has lost control
of the discourse. It is now widely believed in the US — and all around the
planet for that matter — that the US was dragged into the Iran war by Israeli
PM Netanyahu and the lobby.
Shortly after the show ended,
news came out that Joe Kent, the Director of the Trump Administration’s
National Counterterrorism Center had just resigned, and said in his letter of
resignation that “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.
Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started
this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” Of
course, that was the line of argument the Judge and I were discussing just
beforehand on his show.
The Judge and I also talked about state of the war and the apparent lack of a way the US can either end the war or win it.’
In the context of war and forced displacement, Humanitarian Mediation is a neutral, voluntary process used to address critical humanitarian and protection concerns.
Unlike Political Mediation aimed at ending a conflict, i.e. ‘peacebuilding’, Humanitarian Mediation focuses on immediate problem-solving to improve the safety, security, and dignity of affected civilians.
When a civilian population is forcibly displaced, Humanitarian Mediation typically pursues four specific goals:
1. ‘Preventing or Mitigating Violence’ – Facilitating dialogue to reduce direct attacks on civilians or specific vulnerable groups.
2. ‘Managing Displacement and Returns’ – Negotiating to prevent further forced displacement and, where conditions allow, facilitating voluntary, safe, and dignified returns to places of origin.
3. ‘Improving Access to Aid’ – Negotiating with state and non-state armed actors to secure humanitarian corridors or safe passage for food, medicine, and basic services.
4. ‘Enhancing Respect for Rights’ – Ensuring that the basic rights of displaced persons, such as freedom of movement and family unity, are respected by all parties.
Humanitarian Mediation is grounded in the core principles of ‘humanity’, ‘neutrality’, ‘impartiality’, and ‘independence’.
It requires the consent of all parties and operates discreetly to maintain trust and safety.
It encourages displaced communities to speak for themselves rather than having humanitarians speak solely on their behalf, empowering them to define their own priorities.
It follows a structured 10-step process, from ‘Conflict Analysis’ and ‘Pre-Mediation Meetings’ to generating mutually acceptable action plans and follow-up sessions.
Agencies like the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) have actively used these techniques in high-conflict areas such as the Central African Republic, Mali, and South Sudan.
As a last resort, Mediators may negotiate ‘Humanitarian Evacuations’ to relocate populations from intolerable conditions, though these are never considered durable solutions on their own.
As far as I am aware, while Parliamentarians have discussed UK military involvement in the widening conflict in the Middle East, i.e. ‘escalation’, they have not yet debated the merits of offering ‘Humanitarian Mediation’, i.e. ‘de-escalation.’
The UK cannot of course do both, i.e. ‘escalate’ the regional conflict while at the same time offering to ‘de-escalate’ it.
So, what is driving UK policy in this conflict?
Why as it appears, is ‘Humanitarian Mediation’ not on the table as part of a strategy for peace, as opposed to a strategy for war?
Where are all the ‘Mediation Gurus?’ / self-styled ‘Peace-Makers’ – why are they, as it appears, not even engaging in a public conversation about the benefits of ‘Humanitarian Mediation’ v. War?
‘Since 2 March, at least 886 people have been killed, including at least 111 children, according to Lebanese authorities. Israeli airstrikes have destroyed hundreds of homes and civilian infrastructure, including healthcare facilities. At the same time, Hezbollah fighters have launched indiscriminate barrages of rockets at Israel, injuring people and causing damage to residential buildings and other civilian infrastructure.
In many instances, Israeli airstrikes have destroyed entire residential buildings in dense urban environments, with multiple members of the same family, including women and children, often killed together. Such attacks raise serious concerns under international humanitarian law. People displaced by the fighting and living in tents along Beirut’s seafront have also been hit. And in recent days, at least 16 medical staff have been killed.
International
humanitarian law demands distinction between military targets, and civilians
and civilian objects, and insists on feasible precautions being taken to
protect civilians. Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts
to a war crime. In addition, international law provides for specific
protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such
as the elderly, women and displaced people.
Meanwhile,
Israel has extended its extensive warnings and displacement orders across
southern Lebanon, adding the region between the Litani and Zahrani rivers to
the broad swath of Lebanese territory already covered by such measures. These
orders may amount to forced displacement, prohibited under international
humanitarian law.
Large numbers
of displaced people have lost their homes, and are left without any safe place
to stay. Entire families are sleeping in makeshift tents on the streets,
exposed to harsh weather such as the recent storms. Others remain in temporary
shelters or with host communities, where overcrowding is reaching breaking
point. Multiple families are squeezed into single apartments or shared spaces,
with tensions rising amid soaring living costs.
With this
displacement comes a wide array of human rights concerns: proper healthcare,
sufficient food and drinking water are lacking. Education has been interrupted
for another academic year, freedom of movement no longer exists, and
livelihoods have now been lost. And while people are displaced, Israeli attacks
are destroying and damaging their houses, farmland, and other civilian
infrastructure.’
International law can be used to diplomatically isolate the aggressor through formal legal determinations of wrongdoing, the suspension of international rights, and the pursuit of individual criminal accountability.
These mechanisms transform political condemnation into legally binding or authoritative consequences that undermine the aggressor’s legitimacy.
International bodies can issue authoritative rulings that label a state’s actions as an ‘act of aggression,’ which is defined as the use of armed force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state.
Under Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council has the primary authority to determine the existence of an act of aggression and mandate measures to restore peace.
If the Security Council is deadlocked by a veto, the General Assembly can invoke the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution (377 A) to recommend collective measures, including diplomatic and economic sanctions.
States can bring disputes to the International Court of Justice to obtain a binding judgment that a war is illegal, effectively branding the aggressor a law-breaker in the eyes of the international community.
International law provides principles to limit an aggressor’s participation in the global community based on their breach of jus cogens (peremptory norms).
The UN and regional organizations can suspend or restrict the membership rights of states that flagrantly violate the UN Charter.
Legal principles like pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and bona fide (good faith) can be used to support the suspension of treaty-based benefits for an aggressor state.
States may legally withdraw diplomatic protection or expel diplomatic staff as a legitimate countermeasure against an internationally wrongful act.
Isolation is also achieved by targeting the leadership responsible for the aggression, rather than just the state as a whole.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) can prosecute individuals in senior political or military roles for the ‘crime of aggression’.
Domestic courts in any country can use the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, regardless of where the crimes occurred or the nationality of the offender.
The issuance of international arrest warrants severely restricts the ability of an aggressor’s leaders to travel or engage in international diplomacy, as treaty obligations may require other states to arrest them.
Laws regarding state immunity are being increasingly challenged to allow for the seizure of an aggressor state’s sovereign assets to pay for reparations.
States can legally implement travel bans and asset freezes against specific individuals linked to the aggression, further isolating the leadership from global financial and travel networks.
Groups like UNA-UK have stated that the US-Israeli
strikes lack a legal mandate under the UN Charter and that the UK’s support
undermines the international legal architecture. Human Rights Organisations
have highlighted the devastating humanitarian impact, including reported
strikes on civilian infrastructure like a girls’ school in Iran. Critics argue
that by providing ‘defensive’ support, the UK is effectively complicit in these
‘illegal’ offensive operations. Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch have called for urgent diplomatic action and the use of
‘universal jurisdiction’ to investigate those responsible for human rights
violations in Iran, while also urging the international community to protect
civilians from the escalating conflict.
‘The US and Israeli attacks on Iran, and the assassination
of the country’s Supreme Leader, represent an illegal and unilateral war of
choice. This act of aggression is a violation of the UN Charter and, along with
Iran’s retaliation across the region, is fuelling a wider, growing conflict in
which civilians again will pay the highest price.
The UN Secretary General has
condemned the use of force by the US and Israel, as well as the retaliation by
Iran across the region. Speaking to the UN Security Council, he said:
“Military action carries the risk of igniting a chain of events that no one can
control in the most volatile region of the world…Lasting peace can only be
achieved through peaceful means, including genuine dialogue and negotiations.”
International law prohibits wars of
aggression for good reason. The power and importance of these laws come from
previous, bitter experience. The UN Charter was created by leaders who had
lived through the Second World War and wanted to prevent future conflicts
escalating into all-out, uncontrollable violence. They therefore agreed strict
limits on the use of force, permitting it only in circumstances of necessary
self-defence against an imminent threat.
The US and Israeli
attacks on Iran do not meet this threshold. There has been no
serious attempt by the US or Israel to make the international legal case that
there was an imminent threat from Iran, and indeed US media are reporting Pentagon and Congressional sources saying there
was none. No efforts have been made to convince the UN Security
Council that the war is necessary, nor has President Trump
sought approval from the US Congress’.
AI – ‘The historical Bavarian
Illuminati (1776–1785) had almost no direct, documented influence on
the art or architecture of its time, as it was a short-lived secret society
focused on political and intellectual reform. However, its cultural
legacy and the symbols often attributed to it—largely borrowed
from Freemasonry—have profoundly shaped modern visual culture,
conspiracy-themed art, and architectural interpretation.
1. Symbolic Influence (Ascribed vs.
Historical)
While the Illuminati are frequently linked to
specific symbols in art and architecture, these connections are often
historical misattributions or modern myth-making:
The
Eye of Providence: Often called the
“Illuminati Eye,” this symbol of an eye inside a triangle was
originally a Christian emblem representing God’s watchfulness.
It was later adopted by Freemasons and appears in neoclassical architecture and
the US One Dollar Bill.
The Pyramid: The unfinished 13-step pyramid on the Great Seal of the United States is a frequent target for “Illuminati” architectural analysis, though it was designed to represent the original colonies and the growth of the nation.
The Owl: Historically, the original Bavarian Illuminati used the
Owl of Minerva as a symbol of wisdom and secret
knowledge.
2. Influence on Art Themes
The “Illuminati” concept has
inspired a genre of contemporary art that explores themes of power, secrecy,
and enlightenment:
Allegorical Paintings: Modern artists use Illuminati motifs to critique global power structures, government surveillance, and the “unseen forces” shaping history.
Chiaroscuro and Mood: Art inspired by secret societies often utilizes chiaroscuro (dramatic light and shadow) to symbolize the struggle between hidden knowledge and public ignorance.
Color Codes: In “Illuminati-themed” paintings, Gold often represents divine wisdom, while Deep Blue symbolizes infinite truth and cosmic awareness.
3. Architecture and “Hidden” Design
In architecture, the influence is primarily
seen in the interpretation of neoclassical buildings and the use of sacred
geometry:
Sacred Geometry: The use of precise geometric shapes like triangles and circles in building design is often linked to the Illuminati’s philosophical belief in a universal mathematical order.
Masonic-Illuminati Overlap: Many buildings, such as the Los Angeles Central Library, feature complex iconography (torches, serpents, pyramids) that are often debated as being either purely artistic, Masonic, or “Illuminati” in nature.
Modern Critique: Some architectural critics argue that the “soulless” nature of modern concrete structures (like those of Le Corbusier) is a symbolic “dehumanisation” that aligns with conspiratorial views of elite control.
4. Popular Culture Impact
The most visible “influence” of the
Illuminati today is in entertainment and commercial art: Literary and
Cinematic Art: Works like Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons have
created a visual vocabulary for the Illuminati that many now accept as
historical fact.
Music and Fashion: High-profile celebrities often incorporate “Illuminati” imagery (triangles, one-eye signs) into stage designs and music videos as a form of cultural “Easter egg” or to provoke discussion.’ …
To understand what the Illuminati believe and practice, it is important to distinguish between the historical Bavarian Illuminati (1776–1785) and the modern conspiracy theories that use the same name. 1. Historical Bavarian Illuminati (The Facts)Founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776, this group was a product of the European Enlightenment. Their core purpose was to promote rationalism and secularism while opposing the absolute power of the monarchy and the Church.
Beliefs:
Rationalism: They believed reason, not religious dogma, should guide human society.
Secularism: They sought to remove the Church’s influence over public life and government policy.
Human Perfectibility: Members originally called themselves “Perfectibilists,” believing that through education, humans could be perfected and eventually live without oppressive governments.
Practices:
Secrecy & Hierarchy: They operated in a strict three-tier hierarchy: Novice, Minerval, and Illuminated Minerval.
Ciphers & Aliases: Members used code names (e.g., Weishaupt was “Spartacus”) and communicated in ciphers to avoid detection by the authorities.
Spying: Lower-level members were required to submit detailed reports on their personal lives, weaknesses, and enemies to their superiors to ensure loyalty and discipline.
Infiltration: They famously infiltrated Freemason lodges to recruit influential thinkers and spread their Enlightenment ideals. The Week +10
2. Modern Conspiracy Theories (The Myths)In the 21st century, the name “Illuminati” is often used to describe a fictional “New World Order” that bears little resemblance to the original group.
Alleged Beliefs: Modern theories often claim the group believes in global domination, a “one-world government,” or even Satanism/Luciferianism.
Alleged Practices:
Global Manipulation: Theorists claim they control central banks, the media, and world events like wars or pandemics.
Symbolism: Supporters of these theories look for “clues” in pop culture, such as the Eye of Providence (the eye in the triangle) or the Owl of Minerva, claiming these are signs of hidden control.
Celebrity Links: Public figures like Beyoncé, Jay-Z, or Katy Perry are frequently “accused” of being members because of hand gestures or music video imagery. ‘
AI – ‘In ancient civilizations, eschatology (beliefs about the end of the world or the soul’s final destiny) and secret societies (often mystery cults) fundamentally shaped art and architecture to serve as bridges between the physical and metaphysical realms.
Influence of Eschatology on Art &
Architecture:
Eschatological concerns regarding the
afterlife, judgment, and cosmic order were primary drivers for monumental
construction and artistic production.
Ancient Egypt: Preparation for Eternity
Architecture as Funerary Vessels: Pyramids and tombs were not mere monuments but “machines for the afterlife,” designed to preserve the body and spirit for eternity.
Symbolic Layouts: Temple architecture mirrored the cosmos; for example, pylon gateways represented the “horizon” and inner sanctuaries symbolized the primordial mound of creation.
Magical Realism in Art: Tomb paintings and funerary models (depicting food, servants, and everyday life) were believed to magically come to life to sustain the deceased in the next world.
Ancient Near East: Immortality and Regeneration
Ziggurats: These stepped temples were designed to bridge the gap between heaven and earth, allowing humans to ascend toward the divine.
Regenerative Symbolism: Art frequently used “Tammuz symbols”—vegetal motifs representing life, death, and regeneration—to express beliefs in cyclical eschatology.
Early Christianity: The Coming Kingdom
Basilicas and Mosaics: Early Christian art shifted focus toward the Parousia (Second Coming) and the Last Judgment.
Symbolic Floor Plans: Byzantine churches adopted the cruciform (cross-shaped) layout, centering worship on the sacrifice of Christ as the path to salvation.
Catacomb Art: Early burial art used symbols like the anchor or the fish to represent hope in resurrection and eternal life.
Influence of Secret Societies & Mystery
Cults
Secret societies, particularly the
“Mystery Schools,” influenced art and architecture by embedding
esoteric knowledge into symbolic forms accessible only to initiates.
Esoteric Symbolism: Ancient cults in Egypt and Greece (such as the Eleusinian Mysteries) used specific symbols to communicate hidden truths about the soul’s journey, many of which were preserved in the architecture of their ritual spaces.
Ritualistic Space Design:
Restricted Access: Architecture was used to enforce hierarchy; secret religious groups used temenos walls or hidden inner chambers to separate the “profane” world from sacred, secret rites.
Performance as Architecture: Some scholars suggest that ancient megalithic sites were designed with “mythical” construction techniques intended to evoke wonder and secrecy, treating the building process itself as a cultural ritual.
Social Complexity and Power: The formation of these societies facilitated the concentration of power, as leaders often controlled the “design choices” of monumental works, using them to signal the authority of the “philosophic elect”. …’
AI
– ‘In
ancient art and architecture, the Owl of Minerva (originally
the Owl of Athena) is the primary symbol of wisdom,
knowledge, and strategic insight. It represents the ability of the goddess
Minerva (and her Greek predecessor, Athena) to see through the “darkness
of ignorance” and uncover hidden truths.
Core Symbolic Meanings:
Intellectual Wisdom: The owl represents the goddess’s domain over reason, philosophy, and learning.
Vigilance and Perception: Due to its nocturnal nature and sharp night vision, it symbolizes the “inner light” of clarity and the ability to see things others might miss.
Strategic Warfare: Unlike the violent bloodlust of Mars (Ares), Minerva represents strategic, defensive war; her owl thus serves as a symbol of tactical brilliance and forethought.
Victory: In ancient military contexts, seeing an owl fly over an army was often interpreted as a blessing from the goddess and a harbinger of victory.
Appearances in Art and Architecture
Coins: The famous Athenian tetradrachm featured an owl on its reverse side, making the bird a “mascot” of Athens and a symbol of its intellectual and economic power.
Statues and Sculpture: In both ancient and Neoclassical architecture, Minerva is frequently depicted with an owl perched on her shoulder, hand, or helmet to denote her status as a patron of education and the state.
Temple Architecture: Temples dedicated to Minerva, such as those at the Roman Baths in Britain, prominently used owl motifs to invoke the goddess’s protection and wisdom.
Minor Arts: The owl was commonly reproduced on vases, bronze weights used for trade, and even personal items like signet rings and jewellery to provide divine protection.
A Note on
Philosophical Maturity
While ancient symbolism focused on foresight
and protection, the German philosopher Hegel famously added a
retrospective layer, stating that “the owl of Minerva spreads its wings
only with the falling of the dusk”. This means true philosophical
understanding often comes only after events have already unfolded.’
This is not my area of expertise as a Mediator, however here are a few ideas for those of you who do Mediate International Disputes of this nature:
I think that the key is to explore and reveal ‘common ground’, by shifting the focus from ‘theological truth’ to ‘physical survival’.
Mediator Tools:
1. ‘Reframe the Narrative’ – Move the conversation away from ‘Who is right?’ toward ‘What is the cost of total destruction?’
2. ‘Identify Shared Sacred Values’ – Find ‘neutral’ religious tenets, such as the protection of non-combatants, holy sites, or the preservation of the faith itself.
3. ‘The “Lesser Evil” Argument’ – Frame a ceasefire not as a compromise of faith, but as a necessary pause to prevent the total erasure of the people the faith is meant to protect.
4. ‘Intra-faith Diplomacy’ – Engage respected religious scholars or clerics from within the same tradition to provide alternative interpretations of scripture that permit peace.
5. ‘Decouple Politics from Prophecy’ – Help leaders distinguish between their immediate ‘political survival’ and the ultimate religious ‘end times’ timeline.
6. ‘Focus on “Life-Support” Interests’ – While interests may not converge on a ‘spiritual level’, they must converge on a ‘biological level’.
This is linked to:
6.1 ‘Humanitarian Corridors’ – Establish shared ‘zones’ for food, water, and medicine.
These also create a ‘habit of cooperation.’
6.2 ‘Resource Interdependence’ – Highlight shared needs like ‘water rights’ or ‘environmental stability’ that exist regardless of the religious outcome.
7. ‘Strategic Ambiguity’ – In religious conflicts, ‘winning’ is often defined as fulfilling a ‘prophecy’.
A Mediator can use ‘Strategic Ambiguity’ to:
7.1 Draft agreements that allow both sides to claim their religious requirements have been met, or at least not violated.
7.2 Avoid language that requires one side to admit their theological vision was ‘wrong.’
8. ‘Time-Framing’ / The ‘Not Yet’ Strategy – If a group believes a holy war is inevitable, a Mediator can push the ‘convergence’ into the timing.
Instead of arguing against the prophecy, argue that ‘now is not the appointed time.’
This allows parties to ‘de-escalate’ without feeling like they have betrayed their core beliefs.
What other Mediator Tools can you recommend?
In an eschatological conflict, where the aggressor believes that they are fulfilling a divine end-times prophecy, a ‘Chosen People’ narrative often creates a rigid in-group v. out-group binary.
Using the ‘Brotherhood of Man’ concept can disrupt this by shifting the framework from theological exceptionalism to universal kinship.
Mediation can pivot the definition of being ‘chosen’ from a status of privilege or dominance to one of stewardship and responsibility.
If all men are brothers, then being ‘chosen’ means being the first-born sibling tasked with protecting and caring for the rest of the human family, rather than a mandate to eliminate them.
Most eschatological frameworks (especially Abrahamic ones) share a common lineage.
Reminding the aggressor that their ‘enemy’ is a literal or spiritual descendant of the same father (e.g., Adam or Abraham) forces them to reconcile their religious aggression with the divine prohibition against fratricide.
It turns a ‘holy war’ into a ‘family feud,’ which carries a different moral weight.Eschatological fervour depends on dehumanization.
The ‘Brotherhood of Man’ concept, reintroduces the faces of mothers, fathers, and children into the equation.
It challenges the aggressor to see the divine image in their opponent, suggesting that to strike their ‘brother’ is to strike at the Creator who made both.
If the goal is a ‘Kingdom of God’ or a state of ultimate peace, Mediators can argue that such a destiny cannot be built on the blood of brothers.
By emphasizing shared humanity, they can argue that the ‘end-times’ peace is only valid if it encompasses the whole human family, not just a select branch.
In colonial history, eschatology – the theological study of the ‘end times’, was frequently usurped as a psychological and political tool to justify expansion, pacify resistance, and moralise resource extraction.
By framing colonial conquest as a divine mandate necessary to fulfil biblical prophecy, imperial powers transformed geopolitical violence into a sacred duty.
European powers often adopted the ‘chosen people’ narrative from Old Testament conquests (e.g., Canaan).
This provided a moral framework where conquering indigenous lands was seen as a divinely ordained step toward the ‘Second Coming’ of Christ.
In various colonial contexts, particularly in Africa, introduced eschatological doctrines served to dampen collective resistance. By focusing the indigenous population’s attention on a future ‘heavenly’ reward, colonial authorities could more easily maintain exploitative earthly arrangements.
Modern critiques argue that eschatological rhetoric (such as ‘Zionist Christian’ narratives) continues to provide an aura of ancient legitimacy to contemporary campaigns of sovereign violation and resource control.
Rhetoric used by influential preachers and policymakers often links biblical terms like ‘justice’ or ‘redemption’ to colonial or neocolonial outcomes like ‘regime change’ or ‘oil-sector stability’.
These are some excellent
suggestions.
If I may, I would add, Start out slow: limit your initial agenda to a small
number of ‘easy wins’ (eg ceasefire; prisoner exchanges; political dialogue).
This establishes a positive relationship of cooperation, which is important for
gradually developing in subsequent sessions. Then gradually work up to the meat
of the issues in subsequent sessions. This means identifying beforehand the
number of sessions you are likely to need to discuss the most important issues,
and how you can build a progression model that starts from the easy points to
the trickiest. To ensure there is always a positive message at the end, include
an “easy win”.
After each dialogue, and whenever possible, agree a joint press statement
that instils a positive message of progress.
Always treat each side with courtesy and respect. Although it is a given, it is
in my view worth emphasising, especially when matters of religion play such an
integral role in the vision of each party.
That is the paradox of ‘Making Iran Great Again!’ by destroying it.
Logically, Trump can either only do one, or the other.
Today on Truth Social Trump wrote – ‘Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today.’
Some, politicians and journalists excuse and justify this illegal war of aggression by asserting that the Iranian Regime must be changed.
I wonder, have any of these people ever visited Iran?
Others state that ‘pre-emption’ is legally justified, because there was an imminent risk of Iran attacking the US,UK, Israel and the Gulf States. However, they cannot provide any evidence to support this belief.
Iran at the time of the attack, was engaged in negotiations with the US.
So both sets of people appear to have invented and to be peddling a ‘false’ narrative,
See:
Trump says US ‘totally destroying’ Iran: ‘Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today’ – https://lnkd.in/en9i95sg
UN experts denounce aggression on Iran and Lebanon, warn of devastating regional escalation: https://lnkd.in/eWVvyKJ3
‘… “The conflict risks engulfing the wider region in catastrophic armed violence and threatens to set yet another precedent of total impunity for some of the world’s strongest military powers,” the experts said.
They stressed that the unprovoked attack by the United States and Israel on Iran – carried out while negotiations were still ongoing and with the implicit or explicit endorsement of numerous States – is entirely illegal under international law and constitutes an act of aggression. …
They expressed deep alarm at the U.S. demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender”, warning that such a move could lead to prolonged war and enormous human suffering. They also condemned U.S. demands for regime change, including declarations by the U.S. President that “he will choose the future leadership of Iran”.
“No violations of human rights in Iran or elsewhere provide any legal or moral justification for an unwarranted interference with the sovereignty of a UN Member State and an illegal attack,” the experts said.
They urged all States to respect the rights of the Iranian people to self-determination, and to define and change their own political system free from foreign interference.
“Only the Iranian people can decide their own future, in full sovereignty, and in line with the principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights,” the experts said. They added that decades of U.S. interference in Iran and the rest of the Middle East through coups, military interventions and unilateral sanctions, had caused chaos in the region and must end.
“Any loss of life in an illegal war is a violation of the right to life,” the experts said.’
US Secretaey of War today (13.03.2026) said – ‘We will show no mercy and give no quarter’. This is illegal under International Law, and it amounts to ‘terrorism’. See – Iran War: Finishing the Job /Lt Col Daniel Davis
As Professor Mearsheimer explains, if Israel and the US escalate the war, Iran has ‘options’ and ‘can play hardball.’ That is because if Iran destroys the desalination plants and oil infrastructure in the Gulf, then the Gulf states cannot survive, i.e. because there will be no fresh water.
The impact on the world economy will be catastrophic.
Listening to a BBC News anchor this morning, I am not convinced that the proverbial ‘penny’ has dropped. She asked what would happen if the Straights of Hormuz were closed for seven days.
It has been ‘closed’, i.e. ‘gated’ and nothing has been getting into the Gulf States, and no oil has been coming out, except with Iran’s permission destined for e.g. China – for 12 days!
As a Political Science graduate of a top UK school of Political Science, which is the capacity in which I am writing this post, and not in any professional capacity – my jaw dropped when I heard this.
The level of ignorance about what is actually going on the Middle East, including war crimes committed by Israel in Lebanon, where Israel have attacked a high rise appartment block, is beyond my comprehension.
Comments added:
AI (11.03.2026) – ‘Justice Robert H. Jackson’s closing remarks at
Nuremberg on July 26, 1946, defined the Nazi crimes as a
“supreme” violation of international law. He argued that if the
defendants were found not guilty, it would be equivalent to denying that the
war, the slain, and the crimes themselves ever existed. Jackson emphasized
that, to avoid mere vengeance, the tribunal must uphold the rule of law against
unprecedented atrocities, focusing on the planned, systematic nature of the Nazi
conspiracy.
Jackson asserted that the prosecution had established that the defendants
planned and executed a “war of aggression,” which was the
foundational crime enabling all others.
He dismantled the defendants’ excuses, noting that while they claimed ignorance
or innocence, the evidence proved they were central to the machinery of murder.
He declared that the trial was not just about punishing individuals, but about
making it clear that international law now prohibits the “supreme”
crime of aggressive war.
Jackson, acting as the Chief Prosecutor for the United States, insisted that
the proceedings were a “tribute that Power has ever paid to Reason,”
aiming to replace vengeance with a record of documented, legal judgment.’
In the US, under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441), the penalty for deliberately committing a War Crime which results in death – is the Death Penalty. ‘Everybody in the kill-chain is [legally] responsible – including the sailors [on the US war ship that launched these missiles].’ These people committed the mass murder of children. The bodies were so badly burned, that some parents could only identify their child by the back-pack that the child was wearing.
See also – https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/07/us/israel-investigate-iran-school-attack-as-a-war-crime
– ‘A prompt and thorough investigation is needed into this attack, including if
those responsible should have known that a school was there and that it would
be full of children and their teachers before midday,” said Sophia Jones,
open source researcher with the Digital Investigations Lab at Human
Rights Watch. “Those responsible for an unlawful attack should be held to
account, including prosecutions of anyone responsible for war crimes.’
The attack on the primary
school in Iran was a ‘double-tap’ strike. In other words, before the second
Tomahawk Missile was authorised to strike the children’s school, US forces,
their commanders, and presumably the self-styled US Secretary of State for War,
had visual confirmation of the civilians they had targetted, i.e. children aged
between 4 and 10 years old. To my recollection, the last time that a war crime
as obscene as this one was committed, was by Germany in World War 2. So,
justice demands that there must be War Crimes prosecutions of all military and
political leaders involved, i.e. of all those who planned and authorised this
attack on children. Under English Law, silence may in some circumstances be
deemed to amount to ‘knowing acquiesence’, i.e. by turning a ‘Nelsonian Blind
Eye.’ In the context of ‘complicity’ in an unlawful war of aggression in which
the UK may become involved, it is therefore logical to conclude, that this may
result in the prosecution of UK political leaders for ‘accessory liability’,
i.e. for ‘complicity’ in War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
AI – ‘Professor Jiang
Xueqin has explicitly stated that he believe the world, including the
military and national security apparatus, is run by secret societies he refers
to as the Illuminati. In his analysis of the current conflict with
Iran, he describes an “eschatological factor” where these groups
believe a war in the Middle East is essential for the “end times”.
Key Predictions and Claims
Professor Jiang, a Chinese-Canadian historian
and YouTuber known for his channel Predictive History, gained viral
attention for three specific 2024 forecasts that many believe are now unfolding
in March 2026:
Trump’s Return: He
predicted Donald Trump would return to power.
War with Iran: He
predicted a major military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran.
U.S. Defeat: He
predicts that the United States will ultimately lose this war, comparing
it to the failed Athenian Sicilian Expedition.
Theories on the “Illuminati” War
In a 2026 interview, Jiang elaborated on the
hidden forces he believes are driving the conflict:
Secret Societies: He claims the “Illuminati” is
an umbrella term for three major groups: the Jesuits (controlling
the Vatican), the Sabbatean Frankists (controlling modern
Israel), and the Freemasons (controlling the U.S. national
security apparatus).
Eschatological Motivation: He argues these groups are influenced by a belief
that this specific Middle Eastern war is necessary to create “heaven
on Earth” through an end-times scenario.
Global Financial Reordering: He suggests the war is a pretext for implementing
emergency war powers and shifting toward a “Pax Judea” world
order run from Jerusalem.
While Jiang has been dubbed “China’s
Nostradamus” by some for his geopolitical accuracy, critics and media
outlets like The Free Press have
labeled him a conspiracy theorist for these views, noting that his theories
often incorporate debunked historical claims and antisemitic tropes.
