Was Iran Behind the Benghazi Attack?

Was Iran Behind the Benghazi Attack?


There is clear evidence that al Qaeda and Iran are working together, despite the war in Syria.

Was Iran involved in the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012? Too many would dismiss that question with a simple “no.” Benghazi was al Qaeda. It’s Sunni. They hate the Shiites in Iran.

The war in Syria seems to confirm this view. Al Qaeda sends its men and resources to support the rebels while Iran and Hezbollah prop up Syrian President Bashar Assad.

But the truth is that the al Qaeda-Iranian relationship is much more complicated.

The Sunni-Shia divide is real and significant. But Iran and al Qaeda’s hatred for the West is even more powerful. Iran and al Qaeda have fallen out in the past. But they also have a proven record of working together.

Furthermore, al Qaeda is not a unified bloc, but rather a loose coalition of militants fighting under the same brand name. A local commander in North Africa doesn’t care who Iran’s fighting in Syria, providing he gets the weapons he wants.

Not only is it possible for Iran and al Qaeda to work together, but there is solid proof that it is happening right now, and even Benghazi is drawn into that relationship.

Reports from the U.S. Treasury Department expose a partnership between the two. In the summer of 2011, it announced that the United States had uncovered an al Qaeda network operating in Iran under an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian government. “Iran is a critical transit point for funding to support al Qaeda’s activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” it wrote.

“Al Qaeda’s core financial pipeline—which runs from Kuwait and Qatar, through Iran, to Pakistan—depends upon an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian government to allow this network to operate within its borders,” wrote Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen, in written testimony in October 2011 (emphasis added throughout).

The next February, the Treasury reported that Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security “has facilitated the movement of al Qaeda operatives in Iran and provided them with documents, identification cards, and passports.” It said it had “also provided money and weapons to al Qaeda in Iraq (aqi) … and negotiated prisoner releases of aqi operatives.”

Then again in October 2012, Cohen unveiled new material that, he said, highlighted “Iran’s ongoing complicity in this network’s operation.” At this point, the Syrian conflict was well under way. Yet Iran and al Qaeda were still working together.

“Under the terms of the agreement between al Qaeda and Iran, al Qaeda must refrain from conducting any operations within Iranian territory and recruiting operatives inside Iran while keeping Iranian authorities informed of their activities,” wrote the Treasury Department. “In return, the government of Iran gave the Iran-based al Qaeda network freedom of operation and uninhibited ability to travel for extremists and their families.”

And Benghazi? These kind of links can often take years to fully uncover. Last November, a Washington District Court heard that Iran trained the al Qaeda operatives responsible for the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya. Dr. Matthew Levit, an expert witness for the case on the state sponsorship of terrorism, said that “it would not have been possible for al Qaeda to a reasonable degree of certainty to have executed this type of a bombing attack, which it had never previously executed, without this type of training it received from Iran and Hezbollah.”

It took 13 years for Iran’s involvement in the Kenya bombings to become public. It may take time before all the facts are known, but already there’s some good evidence that Iran had a hand in the Benghazi attack.

In May, Egypt arrested three militants armed with 22 pounds of explosives and bomb-making equipment. Egypt’s Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim told journalists that the group had received instructions from an al Qaeda leader called Dawoud al-Asadi. According to Rewards for Justice, a website set up by the U.S. State Department, Dawoud al-Asadi is an alias for Muhsin al-Fadhli—the leader of al Qaeda in Iran. To cement the connection even further, Ibrahim said that one of the three terrorists had received military training in Iran.

Ibrahim said that Al-Asadi (aka al Fadhi) told the terrorists to get in touch with a group known as “the Nasr City Cell”—an Egyptian-based group that has since been rounded up, but has strong connections to al Qaeda and has been linked to the Benghazi attack. The cell’s leader, Muhammad Jamal al Kashef (aka Abu Ahmed) set up training camps in Libya and Egypt, founding the Jamal terrorist group. U.S. intelligence officials identified members of his network on the scene of the Benghazi attack.

In short, al Qaeda in Iran trained a terrorist agent, sent him to Egypt with two other operatives, and told him to get in contact with some of the key instigators of the Benghazi attack.

Al Qaeda in Iran was working with some of the planners of the Benghazi attack.

Under its agreement with Iran, al Qaeda also had to keep the Iranian government up to date with its activities.

“Egypt is rapidly moving into the Iranian camp,” wrote Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry in August 2011. “That means Egypt, which borders Libya, will now help bring that nation into Iran’s terror network.”

Now we see evidence that Iran is spreading its terror network in Libya, via Egyptian terrorists—men who were locked up by former President Hosni Mubarak, but were freed in the revolution.

Did Iran merely know about the attack, or was it a key part in it? Just like the attack on the embassies in Kenya, the proof might not come out for another decade.

But in another part of Africa, there is, almost literally, a smoking gun. In September 2011, the Nigerien military captured weapons and ammunition from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (aqim). It included ammunition that Conflict Arms Research identified as originating in Iran. Then in May 2012, it also intercepted a shipment of weapons containing Iranian-manufactured ammunition.

Also, in Somalia, Al Shabaab has strong links to Iran, and is also affiliated with al Qaeda.

Iran’s patronage of Al Shabaab’s predecessor, the Islamic Courts Union (icu), is clear. The United Nations monitoring group in Somalia discovered that Iran had flown it an aircraft full of weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, machine guns and grenade launchers, in July 2006. It also reported on arms from Iran sent by sea.

Around the same time, the icu sent 720 of its best fighters to Lebanon, to fight alongside Hezbollah. Some of the fighters stayed in Lebanon after the fighting for advanced training. “In exchange for the contribution of the Somali military force, Hezbollah arranged for additional support to be given to icu from the governments of Iran and Syria, which was subsequently provided,” said the report.

Since then, the icu has changed its name to Al Shabaab, and become the official Somalia wing of al Qaeda. But Iran’s support has continued. In July, the UN monitors mention hundreds of illegal fishing vessels—mainly Iranian and Yemeni owned—that visited the waters around Somalia. They say that they “had received several unconfirmed reports that some of the illegal fishing vessels are also being used as cover for weapons smuggling.”

“While the Monitoring Group has been unable to verify any particular vessel that has been used for both illegal fishing and weapons smuggling, it has nonetheless established other connections between the illegal fishing networks and networks involved in the arms trade and connected to Al-Shabaab in northeastern Somalia,” they write.

They also reported that they have captured several “nearly new” Rocket Propelled Grenade (rpg) launchers that “closely resemble Iranian-manufactured” launchers. The monitors are also investigating a ship seized in January in Yemen. It was packed with weapons and fuel, and the UN believes that some that could have been bound for Somalia.

On their own, each of these incidents of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iran would be interesting, though not conclusive. Together they paint a pattern of broad cooperation across Africa and the Middle East.

The two sides also share the same goals in the region. A recent study by rand corporation by analyst Seth Jones concluded that al Qaeda groups “want to establish Islamic emirates in specific countries or regions, though they may be agnostic about a broader violent jihad.” That suits Iran, who wants to push against Europe across north Africa. Jones notes that Algeria, for example, is one of the main targets of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Iran too would be keen to see an Islamic regime take over one of Europe’s key resource hubs. “France, rather than the United States, is the most significant foreign enemy,” notes Jones.

Hezbollah and al Qaeda are undoubtedly the two most powerful terrorist groups in the world. By working together with Iran’s support, they have nation-destroying potential.

The Trumpet has long forecast that Iran would become a major power in northern Africa—specifically that it would get control of Egypt, Libya and Ethiopia. Its links with terrorist groups in the area are a major step in that direction. These terrorist groups may be Sunni, but they are still influenced by Iran and supported by Iran.

Mr. Flurry identified Iran as the “king of the south,” or the leader of Islamic terrorism, in the early ’90s. Since then it’s retained that top spot. For more information on the significance of Iran’s terror network, read our free booklet The King of the South.

The Zechariah Booklet

This prophetic book of Zechariah has only now been fully understood! The book of Zechariah contains prophecy about two end-time churches of God. One church is doing God’s work. The other church, which is Laodicean, fails in its commission to do God’s work. The key to understanding these churches is a flying scroll. It shows us what God is doing today and where it is all leading.

Spies, Snoops, Snitches and Godly Intelligence

Spies, Snoops, Snitches and Godly Intelligence

AFP/Getty Images

Though the Edward Snowden affair lifted the lid on the total surveillance of American citizens, we still tend to ignore the greatest of all sources of mass intelligence.

The Edward Snowden affair unleashed a great brouhaha in the press and mass media decrying the fact that the U.S. government was spying en masse on its own citizens.

So what’s new?

Spying is at least as old an art as the first recorded episode in the biblical book of Joshua where we read that “Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly” (Joshua 2:2). That was around 1450 b.c.

Some even claim an older genesis to the art of spying. “Intelligence is actually the oldest profession around …. Cain killed Abel, striking unexpectedly. From that moment on, humans watched and waited, trying to figure out from where the next threat—or opportunity—would come” (The Intelligence Edge, Friedman, Friedman, Chapman and Baker).

During the Carter administration, the cia even produced a study titled “A Bible Lesson on Spying.” The study was published in the Winter 1978 edition of Studies in Intelligence, the agency’s classified spy journal.

The computer age really opened up a new world to the spy. From the time of the cracking of the Nazi Enigma code by use of one of the earliest computer devices, to today’s gathering, storage and analysis of massive amounts of information by such methods as prism and Tempora—recently publicized in the wake of the media coverage given ex-National Security Association employee Edward Snowden—spying has taken on new meaning.

The spy, commonly called a snoop, and the defector who “leaks” intelligence from his corporation, agency or home country to a competing agency, corporation or enemy nation—often termed a snitch or a mole—in addition to the double agent—the spy who effectively works for both his corporation, agency or home country and a competing corporation, agency or enemy nation at the same time—have been endemic to the art of spying.

In the 21st century, the computerized mustering of intelligence has led to such a flood of information that it is literally impossible under present constraints to put it all to effective use. Hence the need for both corporate and government enterprises—as the Stratfor authors of The Intelligence Edge point out—to “engage specialists to organize, control, manipulate, and exploit all of the information available and turn it into useful knowledge.”

The Snowden case simply demonstrates that, in the process of pursuing such a gigantic task, the risk of information gained by any organization being misused by an operative who breaks traditional codes of silence and exposes secret information to the public, is dramatically heightened. The more people it takes to manage information, the greater the risk of a leak.

International spying, by its very nature, involves deceit, blackmail, sleight of hand and plainly illegal acts. To the educated, then, the Snowden “expose,” the spahskandal as it is termed in Germany, comes as no real surprise. The spahskandal is the stuff for another Web analysis, which we will post in the coming days.

Though the press and mass media have had a field day with the Snowden story and politicians in Washington express “outrage,” the facts are clear. It’s not that a nation spying on its own citizens is anything new. It’s just that the technology at any government’s disposal these days enables surveillance to be carried out en masse and into the very minutiae of a person’s daily life—“total surveillance.”

The main problem here is the use—or misuse—that such intelligence can be put to by a nation’s government. The potential for abuse of this privilege of clandestine mass gathering of intelligence by any government is enormous. That’s the main worry in any nation run by radicals that seek to change the very nature of its foundational constitution.

Consider the case in respect of U.S. citizenry.

Intelligence gained by “total surveillance” methods holds the potential to give any radical administration intent on pushing an agenda that works to the destruction of the moral core of a nation the power to identify any person out of step with its agenda and to then work to destroy his credibility.

There’s a clear-cut prophecy in the book of Amos, chapter 6, that has a latter-day application in this sense.

Our editor in chief comments on this prophecy in our booklet The Lion Has Roared: “‘But, behold, I will raise up against you a nation, O house of Israel, saith the Lord the God of hosts; and they shall afflict you from the entering in of Hamath unto the river of the wilderness’ (verse 14). The chronology is about serious problems (verse 6), nuclear attack (verses 8-10), after which armies come in to oppress. The Anchor Bible Commentary says: ‘The language used in Amos 6:14 points to a beginning …. If not events already in train [or already occurring].’ There is no invasion described, only a nuclear attack and then an army moving in to oppress.”

This is not a popular message. Far from it.

Yet that’s the message that God prophesies must be delivered by those unafraid to carry out His direction to “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” (Isaiah 58:1).

Will those nations—the house of Jacob, identified in our book The United States and Britain in Prophecy—heed this trumpeted warning?

Continuing to explain the latter-day intent of Amos’s prophecy, Gerald Flurry comments:

“Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the land [or inhabitants] is not able to bear all his words” (Amos 7:10). This is a hard message to receive. The land could not bear the words of Amos!However, the primary meaning of this book is for the end time. The words are much more difficult to bear in this nuclear age than they were in the age of Amos. It will be very hard for the people today to “bear all his words.”

Bible prophecy indicates that when the situation reaches this point, with the intelligence monitoring apparatus of a government discomforted by this message collecting sufficient data to act, those responsible for publishing the true gospel of the coming Kingdom of God will be deported from their home nation!

Yet people tend to forget, or are not even cognizant of, the supreme reality that the Eternal God has authority over universal intelligence. He literally knows every hair on your head (Luke 12:7). His inventory takes note of every sparrow that drops to the ground (Matthew 10:29).

That same God has already preserved a place of safety for the protection of those who must continue broadcasting the gospel message till Christ returns (Revelation 12:6; 11:3).

The whole of Psalm 139 speaks of God’s omnipotent grasp of universal intelligence to the point that He knows our very thought and intention. That’s some great intelligence! That’s truly “total surveillance” in the utmost sense! It bespeaks intelligence gathering far superior to anything that man’s efforts can obtain by the most sophisticated means of electronic surveillance.

The reason that Jesus Christ—identified in Scripture as the Word—possesses the power to judge mankind is due to His supreme grasp of intelligence covering all humanity (Hebrews 4:12-13).

Psalm 2:1-2 speak of man’s efforts to pool his intelligence to resist the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to rule the world.

What is the Creator’s response?

“He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision” (verse 4).

The result of man’s acts of rebellion against his Maker in the last hour of human civilization—currently in its death throes—are summarized in verse 9: “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Then, in verses 10 through 12, comes the wonderful guarantee of eternal hope that is reserved for the repentant, those who turn to obey God, terminating with the great promise, “Blessed are they that put their trust in him.”

Let Boys Be Girls. Or Goys or Birls.

Let Boys Be Girls. Or Goys or Birls.

Society is coming to embrace the notion of ‘gender fluidity.’

The public now accepts homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” But the fight is not over. The offensive to reshape society in even more radical ways pushes forward.

An effort is gaining ground to create a world where not just “sexual orientation,” but sex itself, is a choice. Where boys can be girls and girls can be boys, or something in between. Where people are expected to ignore the biological reality of sex so that all people coexist androgynously, or according to whatever gender suits them at the moment. Where everyone pretends that gender confusion is normal, if not desirable, and anyone who doesn’t play along can be punished and silenced.

This demonstrates unprecedented contempt for reality and common sense, let alone morality.

Think of the implications with respect to public bathrooms, sex-segregated activities, locker rooms, college student housing and countless other areas of human interaction.

Does the idea of a boy who thinks he’s a girl showering next to your daughter in P.E. class make you uncomfortable? Then you’d better brace yourself. This cause is winning critical legal battles—and it is starting with our youth.

Earlier this month, the California Senate passed a bill saying that throughout K-12 education, a student is “permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities [e.g. bathrooms, locker rooms] consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.” “Gender identity” is the terminology these ultrasensitive, morally sophisticated lawmakers use to refer to the sex a person happens to identify with.

Last month, a governing body in Colorado ruled that a 6-year-old boy who thinks he’s a girl has the right to use the girl’s bathroom at his elementary school. The Colorado Division of Civil Rights said that denying him that right “creates an environment rife with harassment” and is akin to racial segregation.

See where this is going? The public majority already agrees that denying same-sex couples the right to “marry” is exactly like prohibiting interracial marriage. Now, denying someone access to a public bathroom on the basis of biology is just like excluding blacks from white-only facilities.

These lawmakers and officials are determined to ensure that these children grow up in a world where sex confusion is welcomed, even encouraged.

What about the girl who feels awkward about having a boy walk in while she’s using the bathroom? Sorry. She is the one who needs to adjust her thinking—not the boy.

This is actually being promoted within our children’s education. Our sons and daughters are learning doubt about sexual matters. Teachers and administrators are implanting and fostering this confusion, and it is occupying more and more of our young people’s thinking. Misguided radical social engineers enthusiastically treat this like it’s the brave new front in civil rights and societal progress. And with coaching from these radicals, youths predisposed to question and reject authority are starting to view their own sex at birth as something “imposed” on them, and any social pressure to conform to it as a form of oppression.

Does that sound like an exaggeration?

“A new generation of young people is challenging our understanding of gender,” intoned National Public Radio in a recent report. (Speak for yourself, npr.) “They’re calling for more fluid categories, beyond just male and female.”

Beyond male and female. Within the politically correct cocoon of academia, students in many colleges and even high schools are so diligent to accommodate gender-confused people that they introduce themselves with their “pgps“—preferred gender pronouns. As in, “My name is Stacey and my pgps are he, him and his.” As in, Today, I would like to be identified as a male. These youths insist not only that whether their “emotional gender identity” aligns with biological reality is entirely a matter of choice, but also that everyone else needs to pretend this is perfectly sane.

These students “are going way beyond transgender,” npr reported. “They are arguing for a world beyond the gender binary.” In other words, not only is gender a choice, it is a spectrum. Even pronouns like he and she, they view as confining and unnecessary.

Lynn Walker, a director at a housing organization that caters to many transgenders, told npr, “We encountered high school students who said, I want you to call me ‘tractor,’ and use pronouns like ze, zim and zer. And in fact I reject the gender binary as an oppressive move by the dominant culture.”

Behold the product of our public schools: Students who are convinced that male and female—basic biology—is tantamount to tyranny that must be overthrown.

This is America’s up and coming generation of voters and lawmakers. This is a glimpse at where our world is headed.

We are looking at the next “logical” step in society’s wholesale departure from the understanding of masculinity and femininity. Though the concept of your sex having a bearing on your role in society and within a family has dominated human relations for humankind’s entire history, we are now throwing it out as if the facts are subjective. Today it is viewed with contempt. Now, it’s not just roles we reject, but biological absolutes. Everything is relative. Anything is respectable. Nothing is deviant.

At present, in many circles the world remains a fairly hostile place for gender-confused individuals. But society is changing—fast. Last week, Slate featured a photo blog of a camp for “gender nonconforming” boys. There young boys dress like girls and women, apply make-up, and walk a fashion runway to the cheers of their parents. Such examples are increasingly appearing in the national spotlight—to the cheers of the mainstream press.

Those boys are part of a generation that is receiving the message that it’s not they who must change, but everyone else. And they are gaining the advocacy of lawmakers who are determined to force the world to embrace their behavior.

On the surface, preventing society from badgering poor, gender-confused individuals may sound like a worthy goal. But this cure is far worse than the disease. Rather than helping people overcome thoughts and tendencies that lead to self-destructive, depressive, anti-social behavior, the transgender crusade encourages and inflames them—and demands that everyone else play along.

Hate crime laws increase penalties on criminals who are deemed to have been motivated by animus against a protected class. In 2009, the U.S. government expanded the protected classes to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation and/or “identity” exist in 21 states and more than 140 cities and counties. Illegal discrimination includes anything perceived as different treatment because of behavior perceived as not stereotypically male or female.

Ripple effects from these laws are enormous, and they are already spreading. Universities nationwide are hosting gender-neutral student housing, bathrooms and locker rooms. Transgender law advocates are pushing for health insurance plans to include hormones and sex-reassignment surgery. Last month the Social Security Administration changed its policy for those who want to switch gender on their Social Security card, removing the requirement of sex-reassignment surgery. After victories in California and Colorado, efforts to open public toilet facilities and locker rooms to transgenders continue. Thus, to protect the right of a man who says he feels more comfortable as a woman, the law is preparing to trample on the right of women who feel more comfortable in public bathrooms devoid of perverted men.

That is the truth of the matter. These social engineers want you to think their cause is all about inclusion and tolerance. But if you disagree with them, they have no tolerance for you. The push for transgender rights is a religious mission, aimed at converting the hearts of men. Its missionaries want the nation to repent of its archaic attachment to the traditional family, and to become devotees to the cross-dressing, bisexual and homosexual cause. The only victory is complete victory. Until transgender crusaders achieve this utterly impossible goal—every individual a true believer—they will continue their battle, using every tool of coercion they can summon.

Egypt Increases Military Presence in the Sinai

Egypt Increases Military Presence in the Sinai

STR/AFP/Getty Images

Israel is letting Egypt increase its military stationed in the Sinai Peninsula. Will it live to regret it?

Egyptian tanks are now stationed on Israel’s border for the first time since the Six Day War in 1967, after Israel allowed the Egyptian Army to boost its military presence in the Sinai Peninsula, July 15. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon gave Egypt permission to deploy extra troops, bringing the total deployment to 11 infantry battalions, a tank battalion and attack helicopters.

The situation in the Sinai has long been precarious, and has only deteriorated since the ouster of former President Hosni Mubarak and then Mohammed Morsi. Nearly 60 people have been killed since June 30, with more attacks happening all the time.

Egypt has not said how many troops it now has in the area, but rough estimates indicate that the total is between 3,000 and 11,000 soldiers. Since the 1978 Camp David Accords, the Sinai Peninsula has been effectively demilitarized. In recent years, more robust Egyptian forces have been brought in to deal with terrorism.

Israel is confronted with a catch-22 situation. If it were to stick strictly to the 1978 Camp David Accords and refuse Egypt’s requests to send in extra troops, the area could become a haven for terrorists, and make it even easier for Iran to smuggle weapons to Hamas in Gaza.

But allowing Egyptian troops in the area could be even more dangerous. The Camp David Accords are the cornerstone of Israel’s national security. A Sinai occupied by the Egyptian military opens Israel up to a full-scale land invasion on a flank that Israel has long regarded as secure. Once Egypt has the infrastructure in place, such as airbases and stationary defenses, the number of troops and weapons could be quickly expanded.

Even after Morsi’s ouster, Israel cannot trust Egypt. Even Tamarod, the coalition of more liberal groups that began the protests against Morsi, called for the abolition of the Camp David Accords. Spokesman for Tamarod, Abdul Aziz, publicly said to journalists: “If the international forces stationed in Sinai continue to prevent, for instance, airplanes from entering … we demand from now that [Egypt] suspend its actions under Camp David and impose its sovereignty on Sinai to be rid of these terrorist groups.”

A poll released in 2012 by Pew Research found that 61 percent of Egyptians want to annul the Camp David Accords, up from 54 percent the previous year. It may be only a matter of time before Cairo disregards them completely and takes control of the entire Sinai. These recent military overtures bring us one step closer to that point.

Despite Morsi’s overthrow, Israel is much less secure than when Mubarak was in charge. As the Trumpet has warned for years, the Bible prophesies that Egypt will ally itself with Iran and radical Islam. This leaves Israel hugely vulnerable. For decades Israel has assumed its southern border was safe. That assumption is no longer valid.

There was a lot of talk about Israel’s vulnerability right after Mubarak was brought down, but since then everyone seems to have become desensitized to it. They’ve become used to Egypt being unstable. But Israel should be worried. For more information on what is prophesied to happen there, read our free booklet Jerusalem in Prophecy.

Digging King David

Use God’s Word to reshape the way you think and live.

This summer, 15 of our students from Herbert W. Armstrong College have been working here in Jerusalem on the excavation at the Ophel. This particular phase of digging will wrap up over the next couple weeks—and Dr. Eilat Mazar hopes to begin the third and final phase of the Ophel dig some time in early 2014. For the past 20 or 30 years, Dr. Mazar has probably done more than any other archaeologist to shape the way the world thinks about ancient Jerusalem and the man who established this city—King David. And she’s done that by letting the Bible serve as her guidebook.