Should America Play Ball With Iran?

We were told in a major cover article recently published by Newsweek, a popular American news magazine, that "they may not want the bomb... Iran isn't a dictatorship...[and] Iran may be ready to deal." Are these points basically true? Should the United States negotiate with the present leadership of this wayward nation—regardless of its radical conduct in office?

Was the latest Iranian election really rigged or merely an unfortunate minority outburst of dissatisfaction? The consensus of most impartial observers continues to be that, even if an honest count would have given President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a slight winning margin, the claimed landslide result is a discredited fiction.

According to New Statesman magazine (June 22, 2009), opinion polls showing a strong opponent leading the incumbent Iranian president on the eve of the election suddenly morphed into an overwhelming victory for President Ahmadinejad. The New Statesman article went on to reveal nine other credible reasons why the wide margin of victory was most likely a gross falsification of what really happened.

Iran a pseudodemocracy

One able Iranian commentator observed: "Since its inception in 1979, the Islamic republic has organised 31 elections at different levels. All have been carefully scripted, with candidates pre-approved by the regime and no independent mechanism for oversight" (Amir Taheri, "Iran's Dictator Gives Up Pretence of Democracy," The Sunday Times, June 21, 2009).

As far as this insightful writer is concerned, "On Friday, June 19, the Islamic republic died in Iran." He went on to describe two Irans. "One is prepared to support [Ayatollah] Khamenei's bid to transform the republic into an emirate in the service of the Islamic cause. Then there is a second Iran—one that wishes to cease being a cause and yearns to be an ordinary nation...The fight over Iran's future is only beginning."

One thing is for sure. The so-called results of this election have brought many thousands, if not millions, into the city streets to protest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection. Severe repression, already resulting in at least 17 deaths and many injured persons, will probably crush this popular protest for the time being and perhaps force it underground. But it won't disappear.

Meanwhile this cruel regime, still claiming landslide support, promises to be even more vehemently forceful than ever in its threats against the state of Israel, Britain and the United States.

Britain to blame?

The head man in Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, employed the usual dictatorial methods in justifying the reelection of President Ahmadinejad. "He tried to deflect blame on Iran's international 'enemies,' notably Britain, which he described as 'the most vicious of all'" ("People Power in Iran Can Carry the Day," The Sunday Times, June 21, 2009, emphasis added throughout).

There are reasons, whether justified or not, for this historic antipathy against Britain. In 1941 (during World War II) the United Kingdom invaded Iran and exiled the reigning Reza Shah, seriously suspected of pro-German attitudes. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was installed in office. Then in 1953 the British assisted in removing Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Iran also deeply disliked the strong British defense of Iranian author Salman Rushdie, sentenced to death in absentia by a fatwah for writing what was considered blasphemy in his novel Satanic Verses.

These historical events serve as background to the current situation. On June 21, 2009, the BBC's chief correspondent was asked to leave the country, allegedly for distorting the Iranian protest movement.

Britain has expelled two Iranian diplomats in response to the expulsion of two British diplomats from Iran. And according to the June 24 lead editorial in The Times, "Iran's belief in Britain as an arch conspirator has small historical warrant and is an absurd depiction of modern international relations."

Presidential tirades against Israel and the West

President Ahmadinejad has acquired a reputation for rambling tirades against the West, particularly the state of Israel. Consider his comment on the Jewish Holocaust: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets" ("The Wit and Wisdom of President Ahmadinejad," New Statesman, June 18, 2009).

His observations about Israel and Zionism include: "The Imam [Khomeini] said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (ibid.). This promotes nothing less than another horrendous Holocaust. As one astute Newsweek reader wrote: "Ahmadinejad has said again and again that he will wipe Israel off the face of the map. Should Israel not take him seriously?" (Letters, June 8, 2009).

Then during a speech at the racism conference held in Geneva, the Iranian president branded Israel the "most cruel and repressive racist regime" (Chip Cummings and Charles Forelle, "Ahmadinejad Calls Israel 'Racist,'" The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2009). He has adroitly managed to inject this spiritual venom into many of his supporters. Just prior to the recent election Joe Klein reported for Time magazine, "About 20,000 supporters of the President were inside the building [in central Tehran], being entertained by a series of TV stars, athletes and religious singers... Inside a TV host led the crowd in chanting 'Death to Israel.' 'Squeeze your teeth and yell from the bottom of your heart,' he implored" ("Ten Days in Tehran,"— June 29, 2009).

But Israel is not the only state to come under the Iranian president's verbal fire. In an echo of his previous Holocaust denial, "Mr. Ahmadinejad, in his rambling speech Monday, castigated the U.S. and Europe for acting after World War II to make 'an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering'" ("Ahmadinejad Calls Israel 'Racist' in U.N. Rant," The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2009). He apparently was referring to the Palestinians in the context of the founding of the nation of Israel in 1948, an event that created the first Jewish national homeland in some 2,000 years.

What's behind the rhetoric?

Part of the basic problem may simply consist of pining away for a lost heritage of yesteryear. Recall that the late Saddam Hussein dreamed of becoming another Saladin (A.D. 1138-1193, a Kurdish Muslim who became sultan of both Egypt and Syria)—partially resulting in Hussein's failed attempt to annex Kuwait. Iran's leaders may be bitten by a similar bug.

Anciently Iran was known as Persia—once a sophisticated, powerful and influential civilization with conquerors and potentates like Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes.

Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes in The Return of History and the End of Dreams: "As Ray Takeyh observes, Iran believes that by 'virtue of size and historical achievements,' it has 'the right to emerge as the local hegemon' in the Middle East and Persian Gulf...

"As more than one Iranian leader has made clear, Iran defines and ennobles itself by its willingness to stand up to the United States, the predominant and overbearing superpower, which also happens to be [from their viewpoint] the Great Satan. These passions and ambitions long preceded the Bush administration, as did Iran's conviction that only as a nuclear weapons state could it fend off pressures from the American superpower and its allies" (2008, p. 47).

President Ahmadinejad, and others like him, would like nothing more than to restore the former glory and influence of Persia.

Apparently many in the country speak of themselves not as Iranians, but as Persians. According to the 11th edition of Andrew Boyd's An Atlas of World Affairs, "In Iran's population of 70 million, not much more than half are Farsi-speaking Persians" (2007, p. 146).

Iran obviously wants to exercise complete and total control over the Persian Gulf waters and widen its political, military and economic influence throughout the Middle East. It may see Israel as a threat to its national ambitions of becoming the new regional superpower.

However, obtaining nuclear weapons would constitute a master step toward realizing Iranian national ambitions in the Middle East.

Iran's aggressive quest for nuclear weapons

James Forsyth, in The Spectator magazine, reminds us not to lose sight of "the race to stop Iran from getting the bomb." He tells us that this is really what counts. It outweighs what's now taking place in Iran. "The immediate decision facing President Obama is what to do about Iran's fast-moving nuclear programme" (June 20, 2009).

Later in his article Mr. Forsyth states: "The West faces the question of whether it should do business with him [President Ahmadinejad]." Should the United States even negotiate with a country with Iran's track record? American President George W. Bush labeled this nation as one of the three constituting the "Axis of Evil." Ideally, any nation should never compromise with evil in any form!

Yet the sad truth is that Washington's viable options are very few and narrow. The much-applied sanctions to rogue states don't seem to have helped much, especially when other nations have proven more than willing to cut deals in exchange for Iranian oil. America has apparently already jettisoned the military option (as well as twisting Israel's arm to do the same) and nothing much seems to remain except diplomacy—with Iran mastering stalling tactics to continue its nuclear program without interruption.

Franco Frattini, Italy's foreign minister, was quoted in Newsweek's closing column "The Last Word" as saying, "In a conversation with [Richard] Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton, we decided that I should try to involve Iran at the highest political level below their president" ("Solidarity With America," June 8, 2009). In the end Mr. Frattini apparently did not even visit Tehran, perhaps mainly because "there is an informal agreement that until a final solution on the nuclear dossier is found, no political contacts can be made with the Iranian authorities except by [EU foreign minister] Javier Solana."

Where do we go from here?

So what future really lies ahead in the diplomatic realm? A Times (London) editorial stated that "Mr. Ahmadinejad is not the sort of man to show magnanimity or statesmanship in victory: a more likely reaction is to redouble the provocations abroad, to spurn the US open hand and to offer further threats to Israel in the expectation of a Netanyahu reaction" ("Tehran Spring," June 15, 2009).

In response to the postelection violence and following the lead of other Western leaders, "President Obama condemned Iran's 'iron fist'" ("Barack Obama Strikes Out as Tehran Tightens Its 'Iron Fist,'" The Times, June 24, 2009).

Time magazine columnist Joe Klein in his "Ten Days in Tehran" wrote, "The massive protests have shaken Iran's rulers. But that won't make them any easier to deal with" (June 29, 2009). President Ahmadinejad was once asked about his unusual energy in traveling to all of Iran's provinces. His reply: "My heart is powered by nuclear fuel" (ibid.).

So where does the United States and the Western world go from here? Two booklets will help us understand. The first is The Middle East in Bible Prophecy. Why does the news pouring forth out of this troubled region of the world so often dominate our Western headlines? Why has this area of world geography been a source of conflict, violence and bloodshed for so long? Does Bible prophecy reveal the major events that will happen here in the future? For answers, request or download your free copy of The Middle East in Bible Prophecy at www.wnponline.org.

The second booklet is The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy. It will tell you why events don't seem to go as well as they used to for America. It explains the national legacy of these two countries both in history and prophecy. It also tells where they are headed in this unsteady and uncertain world.

You may also wish to consult a past issue of Good News Magazine containing the feature article "Is Iran the New Mideast Superpower?" by Melvin Rhodes (January/February 2009). It can give you the necessary biblical background to better understand the prophetic implications of this current article.

Remember that there is some very good news if we look beyond the bad. To learn more, read our free booklet The Gospel of the Kingdom. Ultimately everything is going to be set right!

Iran and the "Worst Form of Government"

Strife in Iran

There is strife in Iran—right now! Incumbent president Mahmoud Achmadinejad claimed victory by a wide margin in the recent "democratic" elections. The supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proclaimed that result official.

But many thousands of Iranian voters, especially the younger set, have issues with the election process—angrily demonstrating against what they claim was a pseudo-election. Now the government is violently cracking down on the rioting demonstrators.

Where the strife will stop is anybody's guess. Since 1979 when another Ayatollah deposed the Shah of Iran, the government has considered itself a revolutionary force. So what do you call it when you have a revolution against the revolution?

The failings of democracy

The Iranian establishment blames a lot of other nations for the strife (no surprise)—but particularly Britain because of her willingness to give vocal moral support for the new revolution. Ironically, it was a truly great Brit who decades ago surmised the weakness of democracy:

"Many forms of government have been tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect and all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" (Sir Winston Churchill, November 11, 1947, House of Commons).

This "world of sin and woe"—sad, true words.

But look at Churchill's history-long assessment of democracy. It's as good as man's governmental forms get—but it still fails. That thought can leave you feeling cold and lonely inside.

Crisis spells opportunity—poorly

It appears that where planted, democracy functions only until a crisis of size occurs. Even then it functions as long as the leader with the greater power relinquishes his authority when the crisis ceases. George Washington comes to mind.

Many politicians in history have in essence said: never let a crisis go to waste. The crisis often morphs into an excuse to grab power to keep and wield at dictatorial whim and fancy. That kind of leader and crisis can ring the death knell for democracy. Adolf Hitler comes to mind when he used the democratic process to grab power during the economic woes of the Weimar Republic in the early 1930s.

Even the glory days of the typically viewed original democracy in Athens under Pericles in the mid-400's BC suffered the crisis blow. Pericles and his party sought to expand Athenian dominance, so they launched the Peloponnesian War. Although he didn't go dictator, Pericles' dream for Greece bled to death on the blades of Sparta.

The "worst" form of government?

Democracy—"the worst form of government except all the other forms." Do you know what that means?

Just this…"the way of man is not within himself; it is not within man who walks to direct his own steps" (Jeremiah 10:23).

Intuitively, we want freedom to live and do. Responsible democracy provides more of that than any other human governmental structure. The young voters in Iran amply demonstrate a desire to enjoy those precious democratic freedoms. Yet, even if they have their way, the democracy they might build would eventually face a similar crisis. What then—another political or military crisis?

We humans are a race with high dreams but limited understanding. Freedom we sense as truly higher than tyranny and oppression. But we don't know how to establish a lasting governmental form that will remain free from the vices of human nature.

The form not tried—yet!

Because we know so little about governing our own impulses, all humanly devised governments eventually lead to strife and destruction. But the hope of the world as revealed in the Bible involves a much superior government.

Speaking to Pontius Pilate, Jesus explained, "My kingdom does not belong to this world" (John 18:36, The New American Bible). But He will return to establish His Kingdom which will belong to God!

Isaiah reveals what His rule will be like: "...He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever" (Isaiah 9:7, New International Version).

Pray for Iran

Nearly two thousand years ago, Paul wrote:

I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men (1 Tim. 2:1)

As I watch events unfold in Iran, this verse impresses me greatly. Paul said that we should be earnestly praying and interceding "for all men." Anyone aware of global events realizes that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hardliner Islamic regime is one of the world's greatest threats. Ahmadinejad seeks a nuclear bomb. He wants to destroy Israel, America, and even "moderate" Muslim states. His government funds terrorism around the world.

As I write this, a massive freedom movement is sweeping the country, fueled largely by young people. Millions of Iranians are totally disillusioned with Islam itself. They are tired of oppression. They want human rights. The seek freedom. They want to live in peace. If their movement succeeds, a door may open in Iran for the spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ similar to what happened in 1991 when Soviet communism collapsed. The 1979 Islamic Revolution will be reversed.

Here is one website devoted to prayer for Iran. http://www.prayforiran.com/

Much is at stake. Today at our White Horse Media staff meeting we prayed for Iran. We urge you to join us, and many others. Remember, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17).

In Christ,

Is Iran the New Mideast Superpower?

The Middle East is at the center of Bible prophecy. Iran looks set to become the new regional superpower as the United States and its allies withdraw from or sharply reduce their presence in the region. What are the consequences—especially for the Jewish nation of Israel?

"The bottom line is that Iran is our principal enemy in the Middle East, and perhaps in the entire world . . . As for the question of nuclear weapons, it seems hard to imagine that Iran does not already have them. Iranians are not stupid, and they have been at this for a minimum of 20 years in a world where almost all of the major components needed for a nuclear weapon—not to mention old nuclear weapons—are for sale. A lot of these components are for sale in nearby Pakistan.

"And if the Iranians do have a weapon, it is impossible to imagine that, at a moment of crisis, they will not use it. The point is, we have an implacable enemy which has no intention of negotiating a settlement with us. They want us dead or dominated, just as our enemies did in the 1930s and '40s. You can't make deals with a regime like that."

This blunt warning is from Michael Ledeen, a former national security advisor and U.S. State and Defense Department employee who is now a contributing editor at National Review Online and the author of more than 20 books ("Understanding Iran," Imprimis, October 2008, emphasis in original throughout).

Mr. Ledeen clearly feels that no deal is possible with Iran. Others feel differently, including many European leaders and the new administration in Washington , D.C.

Get it wrong and the consequences are enormous: A major conflict could erupt in the Middle East, the central focus of Bible prophecy.

Another warning appears on the cover of a new book by former CIA operative Robert Baer, The Devil We Know: Dealing With the New Iranian Superpower: "Over the last thirty years, while the United States has turned either a blind or dismissive eye, Iran has emerged as a nation every bit as capable of altering America's destiny as traditional superpowers Russia and China. Indeed . . . in some ways, Iran 's grip on America's future is even tighter" (2008).

So what is the truth about Iran?

The 1979 revolution set the stage for conflict

It may come as a surprise to most Americans to learn that Iran has been in a state of war with the West for 30 years, ever since the overthrow of the pro-American shah of Iran early in 1979. A major failure of U.S. intelligence led to the Islamic fundamentalists under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seizing power in the country and taking over the American embassy. U.S. hostages were held for 444 days before being released as the new administration of Ronald Reagan assumed control in Washington.

"The simple facts regarding Iran are easy to understand," notes Ledeen. "We are dealing with a regime that came to power in 1979, when the Iranian revolution overthrew the Shah. Immediately thereafter, Iran declared war against the United States, branding us 'The Great Satan.'

"The Iranians have been at war against us for 30 years, and prior to 9/11 the Iranian regime was directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of more Americans than any other country or organization in the world. It also may well be that the Iranian regime was involved in 9/11" (Imprimis).

For some years now, Western nations have been concerned that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon—particularly since Iran has tested missiles that can easily reach Israel or U.S. bases in the Mideast, as well as most of Europe.

Attempts by European governments to end Iran's nuclear program have gotten nowhere. In late November the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been charged with monitoring Iran's nuclear program, released a report concluding that Iran had now produced enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. Experts consider that enriching uranium and obtaining enough for a weapon are the most difficult parts of building a nuclear warhead.

Now the big question is whether the United States or Israel will strike at Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions. Some feel that if America opts not to, Israel will be compelled to, since the tiny nation's very existence has been repeatedly threatened by Iran's leaders. However, the new U.S. administration has expressed a desire to talk further with the Iranians and may try to block unilateral action on the part of the Israelis.

Do further negotiations hold out much hope? "In fact, we have been talking to the Iranians, almost non-stop, for 30 years," observes Ledeen. "There isn't an American president from Jimmy Carter to the present who has not authorized negotiations with Iran.

"The classic case occurred during the Clinton administration. We ended all kinds of sanctions against Iran, let all kinds of Iranians into the U.S. for the first time since the 1970s, had sporting matches with the Iranians, hosted Iranian cultural events, and unfroze Iranian bank accounts. Then President Clinton and Secretary of State [Madeleine] Albright started publicly apologizing to Iran for this and that.

"But when all was said and done, [supreme leader of Iran] Ali Khamenei reminded everyone that Iran is in a state of war with the U.S., and that was the end of negotiations. This is what has happened every single time we have tried talking to or appeasing Iran . . . There is a striking tendency among people in modern Western governments not to recognize the existence of evil in the world" (ibid.).

Bible prophecy foretells a coming clash

According to Islamic theology, a conflict is inevitable between Islam and the West. The Bible also prophesies such a clash.

In chapter 11 of the book of Daniel we find one of the most detailed prophecies in the Scriptures, a prophecy largely fulfilled in the ancient world but with some portions remaining to be fulfilled "at the time of the end" (verse 40).

The prophecy deals with two dynasties, the "king of the South" and the "king of the North" (references to both begin in verse 5). These two governing dynasties were the successors to Alexander the Great, the Greek king who conquered the Middle East—including Persia, ancient Iran. After his early death his kingdom was divided up among his four generals, exactly as Daniel prophesied more than two centuries earlier.

For much of the time covered in this prophecy, the king of the North ruled from Syria, to the north of Jerusalem, over a vast territory that sometimes stretched as far east as Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. The king of the South, meanwhile, was based in Egypt to the south of Jerusalem.

These two monarchs and their descendants frequently fought each other. Whenever they did, the Jewish people were trampled in the middle. For a century and a half their conflict continued, culminating in the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem by the northern ruler Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 B.C. Not long afterward, the northern kingdom was absorbed into the Roman Empire.

The prophecy then jumps to the modern day. There was no Jewish political state in the Holy Land from the time it was destroyed under the Roman Empire until 1948 when the state of Israel was established. The prophecy is about the Jews and the two hostile powers that affected them in the past and will again affect them in the future.

The modern successor of the king of the North is set to be the leader of a revived Roman Empire, the prophesied "beast" power of Daniel 7 and Revelation 17:12: "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast." We know this to be an end-time event as these nations "will make war with the Lamb [the returning Jesus Christ], and the Lamb will overcome them" (verse 14).

The king of the South, it appears, will be the head of a powerful Islamic nation or alliance that may include Iran. These powers are prophesied to clash in Daniel 11:40-44.

This clash will affect the Holy Land: "At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through. He shall also enter the Glorious Land [the Holy Land], and many countries shall be overthrown" (verses 40-41).

Jesus Christ restated the importance of the Middle East to Bible prophecy: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near" (Luke 21:20). He also confirmed the veracity of the book of Daniel when He quoted from it in Matthew 24:15: "'Therefore when you see the "abomination of desolation," spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place' (whoever reads, let him understand)."

God, speaking through the Old Testament prophet Zechariah, states unequivocally that Jerusalem will be the center of global conflict at the time of the end: "For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem" (Zechariah 14:2) and "Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:2).

Watch Iran in the near future

Ironically, it is the United States and Great Britain that inadvertently helped create the new Iranian superpower in the Middle East. By invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, they removed Iran's greatest enemy and the buffer to Iranian power.

"Iraq is lost. Iran won it," writes Robert Baer (p. 29). "The Iranians know we'll leave sooner or later . . . there's a growing confidence in Tehran today that the United States will finally have to come around to recognizing Iran's true stature in the world as the only important player in the Middle East—a superpower, even. Iran is confident that America will have to accept the inevitable, that we've been wasting our time with the Gulf Arabs, and that we have to come to terms with Iran" (p. 31).

At this moment Iran is struggling economically due to the falling price of oil, which is a direct result of the global economic downturn. Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli of the Middle East Media Research Institute wrote on the organization's Web site Oct. 30, 2008, that Iran desperately needs to force the price of oil up or face serious economic consequences.

One way to do so, he explained, would be to start another conflict in the region—and the Iranians have plenty of options.

"First, Iran could escalate the conflict in Iraq to a degree that would deny the market a supply of 1.5-2.0 million [barrels per day] of much needed Basra light crude. The Shi'ite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr, with his Iran-paid Mahdi Army, is a potent troublemaker to carry out such a mission in the service of Iran.

"Iran could use its many agents in southern Iraq to sabotage the oil pipeline that carries Iraqi oil to Um-Qasr port. In a desperate move, Iran might cause an incident with one of the U.S. naval ships patrolling Iraq's oil platforms.

"Second, Iran's Revolutionary Guards could sabotage an oil tanker in the Gulf of Hormuz on some flimsy argument that the tanker has violated Iran's territorial waters. Such act would raise the political tensions to high levels and greatly increase insurance premium to suffocating levels or discourage oil tankers from transporting Gulf oil.

"Third, Iran could instigate a conflict between Hizbullah and Israel that could plunge the Middle East into a new round of a military conflict that might also involve Syria (Iran's strategic ally in the area). Armed conflicts in the Middle East quickly translate into higher oil prices, with or without global recession."

Regardless of whether Iran turns out to be the catalyst that leads to the fulfillment of these end-time prophesies, all readers should remember to keep their eyes on the Middle East and especially Jerusalem, the center of Bible prophecy.

What Motivates Ahmadinejad?

The president of Iran appears intent on developing nuclear weapons and has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. In the West he is at times portrayed as a madman, but few realize the real motivating force behind his dream of triumphant Islam.

It's difficult to comprehend, but could a 5-year-old boy who went missing more than 11 centuries ago be the cause of the world's next nuclear conflict?

Adherents of Shia Islam believe that leadership of the Muslim religion was transferred from Muhammad to his son-in-law and then down through a series of descendants. Shiites refer to each of these successors as an "imam"—Arabic for "leader."

The 12th of these imams was born in 868 or 869. A few years later, in 874, he disappeared without a trace, bringing an end to Muhammad's lineage. The Shiites believe that this boy, the 12th imam, survived, "that he merely withdrew from public view when he was five and that he will sooner or later emerge . . . to liberate the world from evil" (Matthias Kuntzel, "A Child of the Revolution Takes Over: Ahmadinejad's Demons," The New Republic, April 24).

Some refer to him as the Mahdi, meaning "divinely guided one." In Shiite ideology—dominant in Iran and Iraq —"legitimate Islamic rule can only be established following the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam" (ibid.). As Christians wait for the second coming of Jesus Christ to establish the Kingdom of God over the earth, Shiite Muslims await the Mahdi's return to make Islam the dominant—and eventually only— religion throughout the world.

Shiite beliefs shape Iran

Because most people in the West do not take religion seriously, it's almost impossible for Westerners to understand the power of religion in the Middle East. In Islamic countries, politics and religion are inseparable.

The Shiites have been waiting patiently for the 12th imam for more than a thousand years, but that patience has run out, at least in Iran. In 1979 the overthrow of the pro-Western shah of Iran led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a theocratic state where the clerics held supreme power under the Ayatollah Khomeini.

"Khomeini . . . had no intention of waiting. He vested the myth with an entirely new sense: The Twelfth Imam will only emerge when the believers have vanquished evil. To speed up the Mahdi's return, Muslims had to shake off their torpor and fight" (ibid.).

Influenced by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood of the 1930s, Khomeini "agreed with the Brothers' conception of what had to be considered 'evil': namely, all the achievements of modernity that replaced divine providence with individual self-determination, blind faith with doubt, and the stern morality of sharia [law] with sensual pleasures" (ibid.).

Khomeini believed that all that is bad in the world comes from the West, especially America, which he designated "the Great Satan."

"Twelvers," as this largest group of Shiite Muslims are sometimes called, believe Islam must triumph over the West before the 12th imam will appear. They feel it their duty to bring chaos to the world. Out of this chaos will come a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West that will then lead directly to the return of the 12th imam.

Thus the Tehran regime is clearly not about to enter into any agreement of substance with the West. Any treaty is only going to be used by the Iranian leadership to play for time, as President Ahmadinejad has openly boasted of doing in his drawn-out negotiations with the European Union.

As the New Republic writer Matthias Kuntzel asks, "Why should an Iranian president engage in pragmatic politics when his assumption is that, in three or four years, the savior will appear?" (ibid.).

Iranian threats to eliminate Israel

One of President Ahmadinejad's stated goals is the total destruction of the Jewish state of Israel. Yet this isn't new in Iranian thinking.

"In December 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani explained that 'the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything.' On the other hand, if Israel responded with its own nuclear weapons, it 'will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.'

"Rafsanjani thus spelled out a macabre cost-benefit analysis. It might not be possible to destroy Israel without suffering retaliation. But, for Islam, the level of damage Israel could inflict is bearable—only 100,000 or so additional martyrs for Islam" (ibid.).

Israel is a small country that could be essentially wiped out with just one nuclear missile, whereas the Islamic world is spread across many countries on three continents. Even if Israel retaliated with its entire nuclear arsenal, it would merely harm the Islamic community of nations, not destroy them. This was the thinking of Iran's former "moderate" president.

The new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is even more radical. At a November 2005 theology conference he emphasized that "the most important task of our Revolution is to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam" (ibid.).

An ancient failed attempt to exterminate the Jews

This is not the first time that a powerful leader has tried to exterminate the Jews. Seventy years ago Adolf Hitler succeeded in exterminating 6 million Jews. If Iran succeeds in a nuclear strike against Israel, once again the world could see 6 million Jews wiped out!

This is not even the first time an Iranian leader has tried to wipe out the Jews. Almost 2,500 years ago many Jews lived in the ancient Persian Empire, whose modern successor state was renamed Iran after World War II. In the Old Testament book of Esther we read an account of an attempt to totally annihilate the Jews.

The story takes place in 484 B.C. during the reign of the Persian king Xerxes I, who was king from 486-465 B.C. The biblical name for Xerxes was Ahaseurus.

One of his predecessors, Cyrus the Great, had defeated Babylon, where the Jews had been taken as captives, in 539 B.C. Soon afterward he gave the Jews permission to return to Judah, which was within his empire. Many returned, but many did not. (In fact, as a result of the Babylonian captivity around 2,600 years ago, some Jews still live in Iran though many have left under the present fundamentalist Islamic regime.)

When Xerxes' wife, Queen Vashti, refused to honor him, he divorced her and later chose Esther, a Jewess, as her successor. Esther had been brought up by her uncle, Mordecai. According to the biblical account, the king appointed a man named Haman to the second-highest position in the land, what we today would call prime minister.

Esther 3:2 states that "all the king's servants who were within the king's gate bowed and paid homage to Haman, for so the king had commanded concerning him. But Mordecai would not bow down or pay homage." Haman realized that it wasn't just Mordecai who was a problem, but that all the Jews would do as he did (verse 6). So he devised a plot to wipe them out.

After things started to unravel, Haman's family warned him not to tackle the Jews: "When Haman told his wife Zeresh and all his friends everything that had happened to him, his wise men and his wife Zeresh said to him, 'If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of Jewish descent, you will not prevail against him but will surely fall before him'" (Esther 6:13).

They might have been aware of God's promise to Abraham regarding him and his descendants: "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you" (Genesis 12:3). Through Mordecai and Queen Esther, God delivered the Jewish people from genocide.

Haman failed to exterminate the Jews. Hitler, though he did kill vast numbers, also failed in his genocidal efforts. Similarly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stated goal of wiping out the Jews of Israel will also fail. God will ultimately deliver the Jewish people from this as He has delivered them many times before.

In Matthew 24:22 we read the words of Jesus Christ, the real Messiah who is soon to return to this world: "And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened."

Jesus Christ will intervene in world affairs to stop humanity from destroying itself in the kind of nuclear conflict that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is threatening. Not only is the Iranian president intent on destroying Israel, but he also wants to rid the world of America and Britain, the leading infidel countries, so Islam can triumph over all nations.

Islam on the rise, the West in decline

Amir Taheri, a former executive editor of Kayhan, Iran's largest daily newspaper, who now lives in Europe, wrote in Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper April 16: "In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic 'superpower' has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its aging populations."

He notes that young Shiite boys are taught to develop two qualities. "The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return."

Mr. Taheri goes on to explain that, in President Ahmadenijad's thinking, "the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to appear."

He had this to say about Iran's nuclear program: "Moments after Ahmadinejad announced 'the atomic miracle', the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. 'We are going into mass production,' he boasted.

"The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a 'lame-duck,' unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons . . ."

"While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian.

"Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defenses, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Tehran [in April], Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the 'Jerusalem Cause', which includes annihilating Israel 'in one storm', while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza."

Mr. Taheri also points out that Tehran has "reactivated Iran's network of Shia organizations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco."

Islamic fundamentalism in a variety of forms is spreading from country to country with no successful reverses. The latest country to come under the control of fundamentalists is Somalia, whose capital city, Mogadishu, fell to militants in early June.

Militant Islam is a powerful force that seems destined to grow greater and to bring increasing turmoil around the world. Among the adherents of Shia Islam the expectation of the Mahdi is feeding their zeal toward the fulfillment of apocalyptic events.

The Shiites expect a messiah. One will come, but not the one they think they are preparing for!

Iran's Growing Nuclear Threat

For the last three years, world attention has focused on Iran's two neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq. But attention will increasingly focus on Iran, a major Islamic nation well on the way to acquiring nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

Iran lives in a dangerous neighborhood occupied already by four other nuclear powers—Russia, Pakistan, India and Israel. It's also been labeled as part of the "axis of evil" by the leader of what its mullahs call the "Great Satan," the United States of America, a nation that has already invaded two of Iran's neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Looking at the situation from Iran's point of view, these are all seemingly good reasons to acquire nuclear weapons of its own.

But the five oldest nuclear powers are determined to stop the spread of nuclear weapons for the very simple reason that the more countries that have them, the more likely they will be used. And the Middle East, the most dangerous region on earth, is not a place for nuclear weapons, even though Israel most certainly has them.

Recently Iran has made it clear that it will not be pressured into giving up its nuclear program. The issue has become one of national pride in Iran, making it increasingly difficult for Tehran to back down. Iranians feel that if the Americans, British and French can have their own nuclear weapons, why can't they?

At the same time, America and its coalition partners in Iraq, burned by mistakes made over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in neighboring Iraq, seem content for the immediate future to let the Europeans slowly apply more pressure on Iran.

An Iranian threat emerges

In the 1980s Western attention was on the Soviet threat and events in Eastern Europe. Immediately after the collapse of communism, Iraq invaded Kuwait and attention was diverted to the Middle East, with Saddam Hussein's Iraq clearly seen as the major threat to the Western world, at least by Washington.

But now Saddam is gone. Whatever happens in Iraq, the country is going to take years to recover from sanctions, Saddam's long dictatorship and the war that began last year with the U.S.-led invasion of the country. Neighboring Afghanistan has similarly suffered and will take years or even decades to get back to where it was prior to the 1973 revolution that overthrew the monarchy there.

While a great deal of attention has been given to these two countries, both occupied at the present time by coalition forces, Iran, the more populous nation between them, has taken advantage of the situation to further its own nuclear program. It's currently thought to be on pace to have several weapons within a few years.

This is potentially a far greater threat to the peace of the world than Iraq ever was. Perhaps realizing this, U.S. President George W. Bush put Iran ideologically alongside Iraq and North Korea, collectively describing them as the "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union address for their desire to acquire—and apparent willingness to use—WMDs.

Ironically, this characterization and subsequent events have given the Iranian leadership renewed zeal to acquire nuclear weapons to deter Washington from invading them as happened to their neighbors.

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer asked in a July 23 piece: "Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons being drawn from the Sept. 11th report is that Iran was the real threat. It had links to al Qaeda, allowed some of the Sept. 11th hijackers to transit and is today harboring al Qaeda leaders."

The Iranian revolution—birthplace of modern Islamic fundamentalism

More than a quarter of a century has passed since the Iranian revolution overthrew the pro-Western monarchy there. The forces of Islamic fundamentalism suddenly emerged in the Persian Gulf nation and changed the course of history.

In the following decade Americans assisted fundamentalist forces who pushed the Soviets out of Afghanistan. In the same decade, the United States quietly assisted Saddam Hussein as he fought the Iranians in one of the longest and bloodiest conflicts of recent history.

At the time, the Iranians, who had taken over the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 hostages for 444 days, were considered the greater threat to American interests. In the '90s, with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and threat to Saudi Arabia, Iraq assumed that role.

Then came Sept. 11.

The world woke up to the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism, but it was not the same brand as that which overthrew the shah. In Iran it was Shia Islam that toppled the Peacock Throne. The 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., brought to everyone's attention the even more militant and aggressive Wahhabi Islam, a branch of Sunni Islam centered in Saudi Arabia.

At the time of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Iraq was under the secular rule of the Baath Party, which kept fundamentalism at bay. Ironically, the downfall of Saddam has enabled al-Qaeda to operate more freely in Iraq and has given Shia fundamentalists an opportunity to seek their own power.

Iraq has more Shiites than Sunni Muslims, though the ruling elite has always been Sunni. A Shia victory in Iraq could play into Iran's hands. A weaker Iraq is already allowing Iran to build up its defenses while the world's attention has been diverted. Also, Iranian fighters and arms have been discovered in Iraq, contributing to the chaos there.

Additionally, Iran's leadership knows that public opinion in the United States would be unlikely to support another war in the Middle East, even assuming an overstretched America had the military capability to take on another conflict.

Iranian threat to Israel

An Iran armed with nuclear weapons shifts the Middle East power equation in several crucial ways. First, a nuclear-armed Iran would be an unlikely target for the United States and its allies.

It would also affect Israel's military superiority in the Middle East. Iran could use its nuclear weapons against Israel. At a recent military parade in Tehran, ballistic missiles and launch vehicles were festooned with banners emblazoned with "crush America" and "wipe Israel off the map."

Even if Iran resisted the temptation to do this, its mere possession of nuclear weapons would limit Israel's options in dealing with other threats.

Iran is the primary sponsor of Hezbollah (the "Party of God"), long the most successful and perhaps most dangerous terrorist organization in the world. Before 9/11, Hezbollah killed more Americans than any other terrorist group.

Syria also actively supports Hezbollah and provides a base for its activities, most of which are directed against Israel. A nuclear-armed Iran would make retaliatory Israeli attacks on Syria less likely, thereby encouraging terrorists based there to commit more acts of violence against the Jewish state.

Lest we forget, more than 20 years ago Syria and Iran helped Hezbollah drive the Americans out of Lebanon, killing 241 American soldiers in a suicide car-bomb attack on an American military barracks.

Will Washington act?

As Charles Krauthammer stated in his column, "time is of the essence" when it comes to dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat.

Washington has encouraged European involvement on this issue. Sensitive to criticism of unilateralism over the war in Iraq, the Bush administration has left Iran to Europe. But the three European countries involved have made no progress in persuading Iran to change course.

Adding to the pressure, Iran defiantly launched an updated missile Oct. 20 capable of reaching over 1,200 miles (almost 2,000 kilometers), enough to easily hit Israel and also American targets throughout the region and in neighboring Iraq.

Krauthammer again: "The fact is that the war critics have nothing to offer on the single most urgent issue of our time—rogue states in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction . . . Two years ago there were five countries supporting terrorism and pursuing these weapons—two junior-leaguers, Libya and Syria, and the axis-of-evil varsity: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The Bush Administration has eliminated two: Iraq, by direct military means, and Libya, by example and intimidation.

"Syria is weak and deterred by Israel. North Korea, having gone nuclear, is untouchable. That leaves Iran. What to do? There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from below or an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"The country should be ripe for revolution. The regime is detested. But the mullahs are very good at police-state tactics. The long-awaited revolution is not happening.

"Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent. Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term. Some Americans wishfully think that the Israelis will do the dirty work for us, as in 1981, when they destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor. But for Israel, attacking Iran is a far more difficult proposition. It is farther away. Moreover, detection and antiaircraft technology are far more advanced than they were 20 years ago.

". . . If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the "Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike."

The Bible shows us that the Middle East will be at the center of prophesied end-time events that directly lead into the return of Jesus Christ to establish the Kingdom of God.

Iran Elections: Were They Rigged?

Whatever the future of Iran's regime, religious fundamentalism will continue to play a major part in world affairs. It's here to stay! Bible prophecy indicates that powerful and aggressive religious forces will continue to drive world events, in both the West and the Muslim world, over the coming months and years.

So did he really win? Or was the vote rigged, as some allege?

Last Friday, June 12, the Islamic Republic of Iran went to the polls in a landmark election. The incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmedi-Nejad, had incurred the displeasure of the west with his incendiary rhetoric, Holocaust denial and his nuclear program, and had also become unpopular with many Iranians, especially the young and the sophisticated urbanites. With inflation estimated at 15 percent, and unemployment at an uncomfortable 26 percent, many Iranians charged Mr. Ahmedi-Nejad with mismanaging the economy, and causing their country's isolation from much of the rest of the world.

His opponent, Mir Hossein Moussavi, seemed to be riding a huge wave of reformist enthusiasm, especially among the young. As election day approached, the debate became heated, even acrimonious, and a close race was expected.

Then came the results, or at least the official ones: almost 63 percent for Ahmedinejad, and 34 percent for Moussavi. Many inside and outside Iran called foul, and demonstrations erupted on the streets of Tehran. US vice-president Joseph Biden expressed 'real doubt' about the results.

Then, in a surprise move on Sunday, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, reversed himself and agreed to an investigation of reports of ballot-rigging. Meanwhile, protests continued, and shootings took place on the streets of Tehran, as Western nations expressed concern and skepticism.

So, was it a clean election, or was it rigged? We may never know. But one thing's for sure: Islamic fundamentalism isn't going away any time soon.

Let's not forget it was Iran that got the ball rolling 30 years ago with the overthrow of the Shah, and the coming to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini; and ironically it's now Iran where many of the youth are disaffected by the heavy-handed rigors of the fundamentalist regime.

But whatever the future of Iran's regime, religious fundamentalism will continue to play a major part in world affairs. It's here to stay! Bible prophecy indicates that powerful and aggressive religious forces will continue to drive world events, in both the West and the Muslim world, over the coming months and years.

Let's watch, as world affairs speed up, and religion influences human history in these tumultuous days!