Will the War With Iran Result in the Rise of the Antichrist? Don Shift's Theory of the End Times

For my non-Christian followers, this probably isn’t your lane, and you’re free to skip it. For everyone else, this is my personal framework built on scripture, credible intellectual sources, and years of scholarship on the topic of how the end times could unfold and how current events, particularly involving Iran and the Middle East, might fit into that picture.
 
This is my framework for how biblical end-times prophecy might unfold; specifically how the Antichrist will be a Muslim and a basic overview of my understanding of the how the end times might unfold. It’s not a prediction, but an attempt to explain my worldview in context of scripture, historical patterns, and current events.
 
I think we may be at a point in history where the conditions described in biblical prophecy could plausibly align: Israel exists again as a nation, regional normalization efforts like the Abraham Accords are underway, global economic and demographic pressures are building, World War III with China is in the offing, and rapidly advancing technology is reshaping how societies function (especially surveillance systems, AI, and how damaging smartphones and social media are to human relationships). Taken together, these factors create a kind of convergence that, at least in theory, makes an end-times scenario easier to imagine than in many previous periods.
 
I do believe for multiple reasons we may be facing a Tower of Babel type moment where radical divine intervention is required to save humanity from a terrible fate. The good news is that this culminates in the return of Jesus.
Theory 
One interpretation of end times prophecy (eschatology) I believe makes sense is that the Antichrist will be Muslim. According to this theory, the Antichrist emerges from a Middle Eastern or Islamic political environment rather than from Europe (revised Roman Empire). A popular belief is that the Antichrist comes from a progressive, Western empire (like the EU) or an evil perversion of the Catholic church.
 
Biblical prophecy also repeatedly focuses on nations immediately surrounding Israel. In that view, the “Beast” empire arises from the same geographic arena as the ancient powers that historically ruled over Israel: Assyria, Babylon, and later empires centered in the eastern Mediterranean. Several prophetic passages even describe the Antichrist using titles connected to the Assyrian world, implying an origin in those same regions. Because much of that territory overlaps with the modern Islamic world, some interpreters see the possibility that the final empire could arise from a political or religious revival within that broader Middle Eastern sphere.
 
Daniel’s visions describe four successive empires: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Many interpreters assume that because the final empire appears to revive in some form, it must be a restored Roman Empire centered in Europe. Some expect the Antichrist to emerge from a revived Roman empire, western in character. However, another line of interpretation focuses less on Rome’s original capital and more on the geography where the Roman imperial system actually continued the longest.
 
After the western empire collapsed, the eastern half of Rome survived for nearly a thousand years as the Byzantine Empire, ruling the eastern Mediterranean, Anatolia, the Levant, and parts of North Africa; all Muslim lands today. When Constantinople fell in 1453, that same imperial core passed into the hands of the Ottoman Turks, whose Islamic caliphate once ruled much of the former Byzantine and biblical world. In that sense, the fourth empire will be an Islamic one, based on the old Byzantine and Ottoman domains.
 
In that sense, the final form of the fourth empire could emerge from that same regional sphere, with a revived Middle Eastern confederation or caliphate representing the empire described in Daniel. Another interesting twist is from Islamic eschatology itself. It describes Islam’s final leader, the Mahdi, who establishes a global Islamic rule centered around the Middle East and who fights against Israel and the infidels. When the Islamic prophecies are compared against Christian ones, their Mahdi and his assistant, Isa (the Muslim Jesus), almost fit to a T the roles of the Antichrist and False Prophet as described in the Bible.
Daniel’s weeks 
In Daniel 9, the “seventy weeks” prophecy describes a period of seventy sets of seven “weeks” of years (490 years) decreed for Israel and Jerusalem, beginning with the command to rebuild Jerusalem and culminating in the coming of the Messiah and the resolution of sin. Most futurist interpretations hold that the first sixty-nine weeks were fulfilled historically, while the final or seventieth week remains a future seven-year period associated with the covenant, the rise of the Antichrist, and the events often called the Tribulation.
 
Many interpreters believe that when Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah, God’s prophetic timetable for Israel paused while the Gospel spread to the wider world. The gap between the 69th and 70th weeks is understood as an interval in which the prophetic clock concerning Israel is temporarily suspended until the events leading to the end times begin.
 
The end times start with this prophetic final “week” coming out of a period of instability across the Middle East. The region is divided among several competing powers—i.e. Turkey, Iran, Arab states, and others (Middle Eastern countries occupying much of the territory historically ruled by the four earlier empires)—while Israel remains politically isolated and surrounded by tension. Conflicts, proxy wars, and economic strain create pressure for a major regional realignment. Out of this environment, a new political coalition begins to form among states that share an interest in stabilizing the region and limiting further war.
 
Israel enters into a major regional agreement with this coalition (the covenant described in Daniel 9:27), likely involving security guarantees and political normalization with surrounding states. The agreement creates the appearance of peace and stability in the Middle East, even while tensions and conflicts continue elsewhere in the world. In prophetic interpretation, this covenant begins Daniel’s final seven-year period.
 
The same coalition that produces peace could eventually become the system from which the Antichrist rises. Israel entering this peace treaty represents Israel placing its security in a political arrangement rather than in God, echoing the warning in Isaiah about a “covenant with death.” Although modern nation-state of Israel is largely secular, this is treated as a symbolic spiritual representation.
 
The mainstream belief is that this peace treaty corresponds to the covenant described in Daniel 9, which begins the final seven-year period often called Daniel’s seventieth week: that period commonly associated with the Great Tribulation (technically the second half) described in the book of Revelation. The early years of the agreement (first 3 ½ years) look like diplomacy amid regional instability, but midway through the covenant is broken and this mysterious, dominant, successful, ascendant leader is unquestionably revealed as the Antichrist.
 
During the first half of the seven years, the coalition functions as a political system with several powerful leaders. Several leaders or “kings” are described corresponding to the multi-ruler system in Daniel and Revelation. Initially these rulers operate collectively, trying to impose order on the region. However, internal rivalries and regional conflicts begin to reshape the balance of power within it. Daniel’s vision of the “little horn” (Antichrist) rising among other rulers is often interpreted as a political leader who begins within the coalition but gradually surpasses the others through diplomacy, military success, or crisis leadership.
 
As disputes arise, possibly conflicts between northern and southern regions, the emerging Antichrist gains influence by resolving crises and consolidating authority. He is successful in all he does and no one can stand against him. Some rival rulers are defeated or marginalized, and others effectively transfer their power to him in order to maintain the stability of the system. By the end of this period, he has become the dominant military and political figure within the revived empire.
 
The midpoint of the seven-year period marks point where this special leader breaks the covenant with Israel and asserts open authority in the process. In Daniel’s prophecy this moment is associated with the stopping of temple sacrifices and the act often called the “abomination of desolation.” At that point the political coalition transforms into the authoritarian empire described in Revelation, and the ruler is formally and unequivocally revealed as the Antichrist.
The treaty 
The future seven-year covenant described by Daniel involving Israel could emerge from a multinational coalition seeking stability after a devastating conflict. We are now seeing a major war with Iran. Historically, big wars often lead to sweeping peace agreements. In this scenario, Israel, Arab states, and regional powers could move toward a comprehensive deal far beyond just peace with Iran.
 
This treaty would promise to resolve:

• The Palestinian conflict via a two-state solution
• Satisfy the desire for a third Jewish temple
• End the isolation of Israel by its neighbors
• Solve many economic problems due to war (i.e. no closing the Strait of Hormuz, no Houthi missile attacks threatening shipping, making trans-continental oil/gas pipelines possible)

 
In the aftermath, Israel, the Arab states, Turkey, and outside powers move toward a comprehensive settlement to prevent another catastrophe. The result is a broad regional agreement that includes Palestinian statehood, normalization between Israel and its neighbors, and major economic and security cooperation, structured as a fixed-term seven-year framework to allow phased implementation and review.
 
A war that severely weakens or destroys Iran’s military could make a large regional peace agreement possible because Iran has long been the central destabilizing rival in the Middle East power system, shaping alliances and proxy wars across the region. With Iran out of the picture, many Arab governments and Israel would have far fewer strategic obstacles to open cooperation and normalization. This would help prevent another potentially catastrophic regional war.
 
A future pan-Middle East treaty could build on precedents like the Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. Several Gulf states already view Israel as a de-facto partner. Economically and strategically, a regional system linking Israel, the Gulf states, and potentially Saudi Arabia would make sense. A normalized corridor linking Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf creates a continuous economic zone from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean.
 
Palestinian statehood and normalization are not the “peace,” they are the political lubricant that lowers transaction costs for Israel and its neighbors to sign. If Palestinian statehood is settled as part of a regional deal, the Arab–Israeli conflict essentially ends as the centerpiece of Middle Eastern politics. Saudi Arabia would probably formalize relations once Palestinian statehood provides political cover. Syria and Lebanon would no longer have to worry about Iran interfering in their politics and supporting its proxy Hezbollah. With the crux of the main obstacles resolved—Palestine and Iranian interference—the surrounding Muslim nations may see this as the time to bury the hatchet with their Jewish neighbors.
 
Under the assumption that everyone truly wants closure, even the religious issue around the Temple Mount could be resolved through some kind of negotiated arrangement. One theoretical model would be a shared or divided sacred precinct where Islamic and Jewish holy sites coexist under a joint religious and international administration. The current Islamic structures remain protected while a Jewish temple or shrine is constructed within an agreed boundary that preserves Muslim access and sovereignty claims.
 
This new coalition system forms (the “Beast”) to prevent further escalation and to lock in a new political map. In the Middle East that would likely involve several pillars of power: Israel, the Arab bloc led by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, Turkey as the strongest conventional military state in the region, and the US and Europe. Europe in particular would benefit from no worries about the oil supply and easier trade with Asia (no Houthi shipping attacks).
 
The treaty itself therefore may not initially be signed with a single charismatic ruler, i.e. the Antichrist. It could be a regional framework signed by multiple governments or blocs as we have already seen in some forms. At that stage the system might look like a peace architecture rather than an empire. However, spiritual forces are at work and regional instability follows.
 
Conflict between regional blocs (“the kings of the north and south”) could become the catalyst that elevates the Antichrist through consolidation. If the treaty system starts to fracture due to competing ambitions, a figure who can restore order or impose a settlement suddenly becomes indispensable. When the system reaches a crisis point, he could claim emergency authority to enforce the covenant and stabilize the region. This is the moment when the system transitions from cooperative to coercive. Revelation speaks of many rules “giving their power and authority to the Beast.”
 
A fully revealed Antichrist doesn’t have to sign the peace treaty with Isreal on day one. The key point is that Daniel’s language does not explicitly say the covenant is signed with “the Antichrist” as a clearly recognized world ruler. Daniel 9:27 simply says that “he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week,” and the identity of the “he” is inferred from the surrounding context. The “he” emerges out of the same political system described in Daniel’s beast imagery rather than appearing beforehand as an already dominant emperor.
 
Daniel’s visions describe a confederation of rulers emerging from the final empire (Daniel 7). Among these rulers a “little horn” rises and gradually becomes more influential than the others. Revelation later describes the same structure as ten kings who eventually give authority to the Beast. That implies a political system where multiple rulers exist first and only later transfer their power to one dominant figure. In other words, the Beast system precedes the Beast’s absolute authority. Under that reading the first half of the seven years would indeed look like political or military-victory consolidation. In that framework, the treaty belongs to the Beast system rather than to the fully revealed Beast personally.
 
Timeline 
After the war with Iran is resolved, the resulting destabilization or political shifts that convinces Israel, Arab states, Turkey, and outside powers that a new regional security system is necessary. Diplomacy quickly pivots toward a comprehensive settlement. A few years later, a multinational regional agreement is signed for a fixed term of seven years. Israel enters the covenant with a coalition of states rather than a single ruler. The Great Tribulation of seven years begins.
 
During the first half of the seven years the agreement appears successful. Trade expands, infrastructure is built, and regional security cooperation deepens but at the same time fractures begin to appear between the different regional powers. During this phase the future Antichrist rises politically within the coalition. He is known as a stabilizer and mediator who keeps rival states cooperating.
 
Then a crisis/crises threatens to collapse the fragile peace. A rising leader steps in to manage the conflict and accumulates extraordinary authority in the process. He becomes more aggressive. Daniel 7 describes him speaking arrogantly and subduing other rulers. Both Daniel 8 and 11 describe him as militarily powerful (and perhaps supernaturally lucky): “will succeed in whatever he does” and “He will be successful until the time of wrath.” Both passages contribute to the prophetic picture that this ruler initially appears extraordinarily successful politically and militarily, prospering and consolidating power before his ultimate downfall.
 
At roughly three and a half years the system undergoes a sudden transformation. The Antichrist asserts direct authority over the Middle East (or more). The covenant that created the peace is violated. At this moment the ruler’s character becomes unmistakable. His consolidation of the framework that created peace turns into a regime of utter domination. While there may be reasonable uncertainty and doubt about the Antichrist’s identity, now it is clearly revealed by both prophetic confirmation and behavior.
 
The midpoint of the seven years becomes the decisive turning point. Daniel 9 says the covenant is broken halfway through the period and sacrifices (within the third Jewish temple) cease. Daniel 11 describes the ruler desecrating the sanctuary and exalting himself above every god; this is the “abomination that causes desolation.” Revelation parallels this moment with the Beast receiving full authority, the establishment of the global worship system enforced by the False Prophet, and the beginning of the intense persecution of believers. In short, he becomes an absolute naked tyrant, openly persecutes Jews and Christians, and faces the wrath of God.
 
The final three and a half years correspond to what Jesus called the Great Tribulation. Daniel describes the ruler waging war against the saints for “a time, times, and half a time,” while Revelation describes forty-two months of Beast authority. During this same period Revelation unfolds the trumpet and bowl judgments, which intensify the global crisis while the Beast maintains political and military dominance…at least for a time.
 
The exact timing of the judgements is debated and difficult to pinpoint. Many interpreters place the seal judgments near the beginning, corresponding to a world that remains unstable (war, famine, disease). Later, after the covenant is broken, the scale of the judgements increase. The final stage of the period is typically linked with the bowl judgments, which are seen as rapid and severe judgments near the end of the tribulation; the literal wrath of God being poured out.
 
At the end of the seven years, Jesus returns as both the Jewish Messiah, who they bittersweet-fully recognize this time, and as the reigning God. Jesus then literally slaughters all those who oppose him and rose up against Israel, often portrayed as the Battle of Armageddon (named after the valley where the armies gather to destroy Jerusalem), and imprisons the Antichrist, the False Prophet, and the devil himself while he reigns over a thousand years of peace.
Disclaimers 
The important limitation is that prophecy describes patterns and sequences, not modern political timelines. A war could catalyze diplomacy, but the exact actors, institutions, and timing would depend on many unpredictable factors. Avoiding date-setting means treating the scenario as a way the biblical narrative could plausibly unfold rather than as a forecast tied to current events. The end times could happen in a few years, a few decades, or hundreds of years from now: people have been predicting them based on current events since shortly after Jesus was resurrected.
 
Christians should be careful about setting specific dates for prophetic events. Jesus himself said that no one knows the exact day or hour of his return, and history has shown the danger of trying to predict precise timelines. At the same time, scripture also encourages believers to remain watchful and attentive to the signs of the times. In the parable of the fig tree, Jesus taught that while the exact moment cannot be known, people can recognize the season when certain signs begin to appear. For nearly two thousand years the church has lived with the expectation that Christ’s return could come at any time.
 
Because of that, thoughtful speculation about how biblical prophecy might unfold is not necessarily misguided, as long as it remains humble and avoids claiming certainty about specific dates. The purpose of discussing these possibilities is not to predict the future with precision, but to remain spiritually alert and aware of the patterns the Bible describes.
 
Many predictions about the end times and return of Jesus have been made over the centuries so it would be foolish to obsess over them. Prophecy is meant to encourage watchfulness, not anxiety or endless calculation. Christians are called to live faithfully in the present rather than becoming consumed with trying to predict the future.
 
Christians also need to be careful that they do not drift into hostility toward Jews or antisemitism. One does not have to agree with every policy of the state of Israel to recognize that the Jewish people occupy a unique place in the biblical story which centers God’s covenant with the Jewish people. Yes, God himself calls them a stubborn people and gets annoyed with them and their repeated betrayals, but he remains faithful to his promise as his grace remains faithful to the struggling sinner.
 
As the tribulation narrative describes rising global hostility toward Israel, hatred of Jews will intensify and become part of the broader Satanic rebellion against God. That creates a real danger that some who claim to be Christians could be swept into that hostility. Political skepticism about any government can be a normal part of foreign policy discussion, but Christians should be careful not to let those debates harden into hatred toward the Jewish people themselves, especially if the end times really do begin.
 
A note about the rapture: For those who don’t know, the rapture is when Jesus calls Christians to heaven and both the dead and living are “caught up” to heaven. Christians have long debated the timing of the rapture, and the Bible does not give a universally agreed-upon timeline. In the popular Left Behind (pre-trib) style interpretation, believers are removed from the earth before the tribulation begins, leaving the world to face the events of Revelation without them.
 
This theory does not assume a pre-tribulation removal of believers before the events of the tribulation begin. The rapture has traditionally been understood to occur later, meaning that Christians may live through part or even most of the tribulation period. At the same time, many who hold this position believe that while Christians may experience persecution and hardship during this period (or they may supernaturally be protected), they are ultimately spared from God’s final wrath in the sense of eternal judgment.
 
The exact timing of the rapture does not change the basic point that Christians should expect to see significant prophetic events unfold. Because Scripture has been interpreted both ways, many people treat the timing as an open question rather than a doctrinal certainty. Either way, you aren’t going to Hell, and if you see a seven year peace treaty being proposed with Muslim countries and Israel, pay attention because prophecy might be fulfilled.
 
Finally, I’m deeply indebted to the work of Joel Richardson, author of The Islamic Antichrist and Mideast Beast, as well as Walid Shoebat and G. H. Lang for formation of this theory.