21st CENT-GAME: PART 1 - FACTS VS CONSPIRACIES AND THE GAME OF GLOBAL POWER

 

First, credit where credit is due. I must acknowledge the author of OutSyed The Box and the article discussing Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

As i would like to add my own perspective and connect it to several issues I have discussed previously.

As the saying goes, when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. And in international politics, the grass is often ‘the rakyat.’

This is why I want to connect the OutSyed The Box article with my earlier writings, including my discussion of the Russia-Ukraine war and the political forces operating behind it. I am also interested in the wider relationship between America, Russia, China, Iran and the Muslim world.

But before we start connecting the dots, let us establish one rule: “facts must come first, interpretations must be identified, and conspiracy theories must face the same questions as every other claim.”

Otherwise, we are not investigating anything. We are simply collecting rumours and decorating them with dramatic music.

 

Biden, Eid al-Fitr and the Hidden Imam

Let us begin with Joe Biden and the Hidden Imam. On May 2, 2022, Biden hosted an Eid al-Fitr celebration in the East Room of the White House to mark the end of Ramadan.

During his speech, he acknowledged that he had previously known little about the details of Islam. He then said that he had not understood the concept of the “Hidden Imam” and had hired a professor of Islamic studies to teach him more.

The full speech is available through:

So, what exactly did Biden say? He acknowledged that he had not understood the concept of the Hidden Imam and explained that he had sought help from a professor. That is the documented context.

The remark was made publicly during an Eid celebration, not in a secret meeting with Iranian officials. We should not remove the sentence from its surroundings and pretend that we have discovered a hidden diplomatic message.

Understanding a religious concept is not the same as endorsing it, and mentioning it is certainly not proof of a secret political alliance.

Here is where my Facts vs. Conspiracy framework comes in:

Fact number one: Biden made the remark on May 2, 2022.

Fact number two: he was speaking during a White House Eid al-Fitr reception.

Fact number three: he described his effort to learn more about Islam.

An interpretation might suggest that his reference to the Hidden Imam is interesting because of Iran's political and religious importance.

That is a legitimate subject for discussion. But the claim that Biden was signalling support for an apocalyptic religious plan would require additional evidence. The speech alone does not establish it.

There is a difference between asking questions and jumping to conclusions. A detective follows the evidence; a conspiracy theorist sometimes decides who the culprit is before entering the room.

Jangan kerana nampak bayang-bayang di dinding, kita terus menuduh seluruh kampung ada hantu. If someone has further evidence, let us examine it. If not, we should have the courage to say that we do not know.

 

Iran, the Islamic Messiah and the Politics of Prophecy

This brings us to the article from the Dr. James Dobson Family Institute about the Iran war and the Islamic Messiah. The article approaches the conflict through a religious and prophetic framework.

Readers should recognise that perspective for what it is: a particular interpretation of events, rather than automatic proof that governments are fighting a war to fulfil religious prophecy.

Religion can influence national identity, public opinion and the way communities understand conflict. Political leaders can also use religious language to motivate supporters or justify their policies. Yet we must distinguish between a belief held by a religious community and a strategy adopted by a government. The existence of a prophecy does not prove that every military operation involving a country with a religious majority is designed to fulfil it.

Iran is especially complicated because its political institutions, revolutionary history, religious leadership and regional ambitions are closely connected. Its leaders have their own strategic interests, just as American, Russian and Chinese leaders have theirs.

To understand the conflict, we must examine military objectives, security concerns, alliances, economic interests and the decisions that brought the parties into confrontation. Religious ideas may form part of the picture, but they cannot replace the evidence.

 

Trump: Bush 2.0 or a Different Political Animal?

Now let us talk about Donald Trump. Is he Bush 2.0?

The comparison is worth examining, although the phrase should be treated as a political analogy rather than a claim that the two presidents are identical.

George W. Bush's presidency was shaped by the September 11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Those decisions changed the Middle East and had consequences for Muslim communities around the world.

Trump belongs to a different political era. His rhetoric, approach to alliances, immigration policies and use of executive power have their own characteristics.

Nevertheless, there are questions worth asking about continuity in American foreign policy. How does Washington define a security threat? When does it use military force? How does it justify restrictions on people from other countries? And how much of its foreign policy changes when a new president enters the White House?

The comparison with Bush becomes more useful when we examine actual decisions rather than personalities. Both administrations have operated within a political system that gives national security a central place in foreign policy. But that does not mean their decisions, motives or consequences are identical. History rarely repeats itself like a song played on repeat. Sometimes, it returns with a different beat and a more expensive music video.

 

Does Trump Have a Problem with Muslims?

@aljazeeraenglish “If you’re in doubt about somebody’s name from the Middle East, just say ‘Mohammed,’” says US President Donald Trump. . He made the comments at a rally in Georgia when speculating on who the next president of Iran would be. #news ♬ original sound - Al Jazeera English

What about Trump's attitude towards Muslims? We cannot establish his private feelings towards every Muslim from political speeches alone. However, we can examine his public statements and policies.

During his first presidential campaign, Trump called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.

In 2017, his administration introduced travel restrictions affecting several predominantly Muslim countries. A revised version of those restrictions was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 2018.

His second administration has also imposed further entry restrictions affecting numerous countries, including several with Muslim-majority populations.

The administration has defended such measures on national-security and screening grounds, while critics argue that the policies disproportionately burden Muslim communities and people from particular national backgrounds. The details of the policies and their exceptions matter, but so do their effects on families, students, workers and travellers.

These are documented political issues, not merely social media gossip. Yet we should still be precise. A government policy can be criticised for its discriminatory impact without claiming that every person supporting it personally hates Muslims. 

Likewise, a national-security justification should not exempt a policy from scrutiny. The proper question is whether the restrictions are justified by evidence, proportionate to the risks and consistent with the legal protections involved.

The Muslim world is also not a single political bloc. Muslims in Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France and the United States have different national interests, political opinions and religious traditions. Some support particular American policies; others oppose them.

Some are Shia, others Sunni, and many disagree among themselves about politics and religion. Anyone who treats nearly two billion people as if they all think alike has already lost the plot.

Trump, Paris and the Immigration Debate

Now, let us move to Paris, because Trump's latest remarks have brought immigration, Islam and European politics into the same argument. On October 19, 2026, Trump claimed that Paris would become a “Muslim city very soon” and criticised French President Emmanuel Macron over immigration. His remarks came amid violent protests and looting in several French cities. The statement was reported by Al Jazeera and Euronews.

There are two separate questions here. The first is what is happening in France. The second is whether Trump's explanation accurately describes the causes of the unrest. These questions should not be confused simply because they appear in the same speech.

Reporting on October 19 described protests, looting, property damage and local curfews, against a background of student demonstrations, economic frustration and political tensions. French authorities faced pressure to restore order, while politicians disagreed over responsibility for the violence. Trump blamed immigration and Macron's policies, but that is his political interpretation. It does not, by itself, prove that immigration or Islam caused the unrest.

Paris has a diverse population, including Muslims whose families have roots in France and its former colonies. That fact alone does not establish that the city is about to undergo the religious transformation Trump predicts. A city's demographic future cannot be proven by pointing at a riot, a burning vehicle or a viral video. If the issue is immigration, examine migration data. If it is crime, examine reliable crime statistics. If it is the cost of living, examine household expenses and economic conditions. Different problems require different evidence.

The same applies to the Instagram reel concerning Trump and Paris. Its claims should be checked against the original footage and reliable reporting before being used to support a wider argument. A video can show us what someone said or what happened in a particular place. It does not automatically establish why it happened, who organised it or what will happen next.

And here lies the political danger. When leaders frame a complicated social problem as a battle between one religious community and everyone else, they risk turning legitimate policy debates into collective blame. Governments have a responsibility to maintain public order and enforce the law. They also have a responsibility to distinguish between individuals who commit crimes and millions of people who share a religion with them. Justice cannot function properly if guilt is assigned by association.

Putin, Trump and Xi: Three Leaders, One Table?

We must be careful with the words we use: a proposed meeting is not a confirmed summit, and a summit is not automatically a peace negotiation. There is no basis to assume that November 19 will produce a final agreement ending the war in Ukraine or resolving the conflict involving Iran.

There is also an important question about Ukraine's place at the table. Ukrainian officials have criticised the prospect of discussions involving the three major powers without Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. 

The Kremlin, meanwhile, has said that any lasting settlement of the Ukraine war would require Kyiv's involvement. This is not a minor diplomatic detail. If a meeting discusses the future of a country, the people who represent that country cannot simply be treated as spectators.

Imagine three powerful men drawing lines on a map while the people living within those lines wait outside the room. It may make for an impressive photograph, but it does not guarantee a workable peace. A settlement requires more than an announcement. It requires agreement on the terms, credible commitments, mechanisms to address violations and the participation of those expected to live with the consequences.

The same principle applies to Iran and the wider Middle East. If leaders discuss regional security, military escalation or nuclear risks, we should examine what is actually on the agenda. 

We should not assume that every meeting involving Trump, Putin and Xi is secretly about the Hidden Imam, nor should we assume that religious prophecy explains every military decision. Those are possibilities that would require specific evidence, not conclusions that can be reached merely because the topics appear together online.

Standby for Part 2...