(Blog) I'm Falling & I Can't Get Up - Ep. 947 - July 20, 2026

Trump, Israel, Iran, and the Questions Ahead

Public criticism between allies can carry consequences far beyond one news cycle. In Episode 947 of The Smith and Rowland Show, Jeff and Alan question President Trump's reported remarks about Israel, the Iran agreement, and whether America is moving away from its strongest Middle East ally.

Their concern reaches beyond politics. They connect the present conflict to religious freedom, Bible prophecy, God's preservation of Israel, and what they see as declining American support for the Jewish state.

Humor Opens a Serious Conversation

Jeff and Alan begin with jokes about a fictional sponsor called "Bag of Screws," conference invitations, and the state of American politics. Yet the humor quickly gives way to concern about Democratic Socialists winning elections and what they describe as growing acceptance of socialism in the United States.

The hosts cite a claimed 63% approval rating for socialism and react with disbelief. Jeff jokes that the poll must have been taken "at school," while both men express concern about the direction of the country.

Their stated concerns include:

• Democratic Socialists winning elections in cities such as New York, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.
• Socialism becoming more acceptable in American political life.
• The possible loss of religious freedom, free speech, and the American republican form of government.

Alan says he would rather face war than lose religious liberty, free speech, or the nation's way of life. Jeff agrees that the political developments are troubling, even as both acknowledge they use humor because the headlines bother them.

The Reported Iran Agreement Leaves Them Uneasy

The conversation turns to President Trump's reported agreement involving Iran. Jeff and Alan don't celebrate war, but neither is ready to call the agreement a success.

Alan says the jury is still out. He doesn't feel good about the agreement based on what he has heard, while Jeff says he isn't leaning toward a positive view either. Their main concern is that an agreement may pause a conflict without removing the threat behind it.

A ceasefire can create time to prepare

The hosts believe Iran could use a period of peace to rebuild, rearm, and attack again. They connect that concern to Israel's experience with hostile groups whose military networks survive conflict and later return to the fight.

Jeff says he has little confidence that Iran will follow a set of rules or guidelines. In his view, Iran is unlikely to honor an agreement if doing so conflicts with its broader goals.

Jeff and Alan's concern is not that peace is undesirable. Their concern is that a temporary agreement may give hostile powers time to prepare for another conflict.

Russia's relationship with Iran adds to their concern

Russia's potential role is central to their concern about Iran's future military capacity. Jeff says Russia has supplied Iran and will continue to do so, pointing to a 20-year military cooperation agreement between Russia and Iran that began several years ago.

The hosts also connect that relationship to Ezekiel 38, which they believe speaks of an alliance involving Russia and Islamic nations. In their view, Russia's relationship with Iran is not a minor regional issue. It is part of a larger alignment that Scripture describes.

Trump's Public Criticism of Israel

Jeff and Alan acknowledge Trump's record as one of the strongest pro-Israel presidents in modern American history. They cite his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the relocation of the U.S. Embassy, recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and support for Israel during difficult periods.

Because of that record, they are troubled by reported comments about Israel's war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The reported comments about Lebanon and Hezbollah

According to the discussion, Trump said Israel had fought Hezbollah for too long and that too many people were being killed. He reportedly criticized the destruction of apartment buildings when Israel sought individual targets, noting that not everyone in those buildings was Hezbollah.

Trump also reportedly said he did not like an Israeli strike in Beirut and had told Israeli leaders so. The statement that troubles the hosts most is his reported suggestion that Syria could deal with Hezbollah if Israel could not act without killing others.

Alan rejects the idea that Syria should be trusted to handle Hezbollah. He asks where Syria had been for the past 35 or 40 years if it was capable of stopping the group.

Why the public setting matters to the hosts

Neither Jeff nor Alan argues that allies must agree on every military decision. They say private disagreements are normal, and they believe Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have bumped heads before.

Their objection is to public criticism.

Jeff and Alan believe disagreements between allies belong in private meetings, not in public political battles.

They argue that a president who objects to Israel's actions should call Netanyahu directly, travel to Israel, or invite him to a private meeting. In their view, public criticism weakens a united front and can look like pressure on Israel's government.

Throughout the episode, they describe Israel as America's only true ally, and they warn against treating that alliance casually.

Supporting Israel Does Not Require Agreement With Every Decision

Jeff and Alan make a distinction between supporting Israel and endorsing every action of the Israeli government. They say they support the land of Israel, America's alliance with Israel, and the protection of the Jewish state.

However, they don't believe a Christian must agree with every policy or military decision made by Israel's current leadership.

Their biblical reasons for supporting Israel

The hosts say Scripture persuades them to support Israel. They also stress the importance of promoting the gospel of Jesus Christ in Israel.

Jeff refers to biblical teaching that connects Israel's future redemption with a time when Israel cries out to the Lord. For him, that conviction shapes how Christians should view the nation, even while political leaders and governments remain imperfect.

Their support for Israel is rooted in their reading of Scripture, not in a claim that every Israeli government action is beyond criticism.

Israel's Survival Depends on God, Not One Leader

The hosts take strong exception to Trump's statement that, without him, there would be no Israel. Jeff says he has heard Trump make that claim. Alan responds that the statement should instead recognize God as the reason Israel exists.

They acknowledge that God can use leaders and nations as instruments of protection. Still, they insist that an instrument is not the source.

Israel's history of survival

The episode recalls the long list of powers and events Israel has survived:

• Egypt
• Assyria
• Babylon
• Persia
• Greece
• Rome
• Islamic caliphates
• The Crusades
• Centuries of exile
• The Holocaust
• Repeated attacks by neighboring nations

Jeff and Alan use that history to argue that Israel's survival cannot be explained as geopolitical luck. They believe God has preserved Israel through eras when no American president, military alliance, or modern political structure existed.

A warning about pride and political power

Alan says there are some things political leaders should not say. For him, claiming personal credit for Israel's existence crosses a spiritual line because it gives human achievement a place that belongs to God.

The hosts don't reject America's role in Israel's defense. Instead, they say America may be one of the instruments God has used. Yet they insist that God's covenant faithfulness remains the foundation of Israel's survival.

Hezbollah's Use of Civilian Areas

Jeff and Alan argue that public criticism of Israel's military campaign often ignores Hezbollah's tactics. They say Hezbollah intentionally places military assets among civilians rather than separating its fighters and weapons from residential life.

The hosts name apartment complexes, schools, mosques, hospitals, and civilian neighborhoods as places where Hezbollah embeds weapons, fighters, and command infrastructure.

Why this complicates Israeli military action

In their view, Hezbollah's placement of military targets in civilian areas is deliberate. They say international headlines often focus on the destruction caused by Israeli strikes but give less attention to why weapons or fighters were located in civilian buildings.

Jeff and Alan argue that Hezbollah benefits when civilians die because the deaths increase international diplomatic pressure on Israel. They reject the idea that Israel bears equal responsibility for that tactic.

Israel, they say, did not place rockets in apartment buildings or missile depots near schools. Nor did Israel choose to use civilians as shields.

Their concern about leaving military networks intact

The hosts believe the danger does not end when a conflict pauses. If military networks remain intact, they argue, hostile groups can rebuild leadership structures, replace weapons, and attack again.

That concern drives much of their uncertainty about the Iran agreement. They believe Israel understands this pattern because it has faced it repeatedly in conflicts with Hezbollah and other hostile groups.

Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and a Wider Conflict

Jeff and Alan view the war between Russia and Ukraine as part of a larger struggle in which major powers support opposing sides through other countries.

They say Ukraine has carried out major strikes against Russia and argue that the United States and NATO countries have helped Ukraine with weapons. In their view, the United States supplies NATO nations, NATO nations support Ukraine, and Ukraine uses those weapons against Russia.

Their view of two corrupt nations at war

Jeff says he believes both Russia and Ukraine are corrupt. Even so, both hosts focus on the human cost of the war. They say thousands of people are reportedly dying each week in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Alan contrasts that figure with the reported loss of 13 Americans in the conflict with Iran. He says the low number of American deaths in that operation showed favor from God.

Jeff agrees, saying America could not have carried out that operation with only 13 deaths without divine favor.

Bible passages they connect to current events

The hosts reference two passages as they discuss the international situation:

• Ezekiel 38, in connection with Russia, Iran, and a future alliance of nations.
• Jeremiah 49, which they believe may have had a cyclical fulfillment involving America's action against Iran.

They believe Russia's relationship with Iran, the war in Ukraine, and tensions involving Israel may have prophetic meaning. Yet they also say the situation troubles them because they fear the relationship between America and Israel could weaken.

America Is Losing Support for Israel

Jeff and Alan say support for Israel has been declining among Americans for some time. They blame the Democratic Party, liberal professors, television talk-show hosts, and podcasters for influencing public opinion against Israel.

They also mention prominent online voices such as Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly as part of a broader media environment they believe has become increasingly hostile to Israel.

Their concern about America's only reliable ally

The hosts reject the idea that America's other formal relationships are as dependable as its relationship with Israel. They say recent events have shown that NATO nations and other countries are not necessarily reliable friends of the United States.

By contrast, they believe Israel has stood with America since 1948, while America has stood with Israel through conflict. The relationship, in their view, is both political and spiritual.

They fear that public criticism from Trump, combined with declining popular support, may damage trust between the two nations.

Dispensationalism, the King James Bible, and Israel

The final part of the discussion turns to Bible teaching. Jeff and Alan argue that a dispensational understanding of Scripture has sustained America's relationship with Israel.

They link that understanding to the King James Bible and the Scofield Reference Bible. In their view, this biblical framework helped shape American support for Israel after the nation's modern rebirth in 1948.

Their concern about replacement theology

The hosts describe replacement theology as a view that removes Israel from its biblical role and gives that role to the church. They believe attacks on dispensationalism are also attacks on the biblical case for supporting Israel.

Jeff says it appears that people must destroy dispensationalism if they want to destroy America's relationship with Israel. Alan agrees.

They also wonder whether replacement theology or anti-dispensational ideas have influenced people around the White House, even if Trump himself may not recognize that influence.

Jeff and Alan believe God's covenant relationship with Israel is essential to understanding both Scripture and present events.

The Concern Behind the Conversation

Jeff and Alan's deepest concern is not that political leaders disagree. They are concerned that America may be weakening its commitment to Israel while Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, and other hostile powers continue to prepare for conflict.

They believe America remains secure because of God's favor, not because of any one president. Political decisions matter, but they say God's protection matters more.

For the hosts, the tension between Trump and Netanyahu is serious because it may point to a larger change in America's relationship with Israel. That possibility troubles them as both a political development and a prophetic one.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), I'm Falling & I Can't Get Up - Ep. 947 - July 20, 2026"