U.S. General David Petraeus is expected to make a decision this fall as to the troop reduction in Iraq. With nearly 150,000 American soldiers yet there, it is hard to believe that soldiers will be mainly out in 2009. I therefore do not see how Gog could arise militarily in Iraq in 2009, for if he were to do so amid a significant American presence, American soldiers would be ordered to dig in rather than leave.
A solution is that Gog enters diplomatically with the American White House in some agreement. However, with strain now existing between Russia's president and the Bush administration, this scenario is not expected until the next U.S. president is elected. I am very eager to see how Obama relates with Russia, and vice versa, and am wondering if Obama's trip to Europe will begin to put the wheels in motion for a new tack on Iraq...that includes a Russian presence.
On my becoming more familiar with Mosul, I learned that western Mosul (west side of the Tigris river) is "Arab Mosul" (versus Kurdish Mosul on the east side), where Saddam's Ba'athists were granted large estates. In fact, Saddam evicted Kurds from their homes. Some of the properties belonged to Kurd ancestors of several centuries, but Saddam deeded them to his loyal Ba'athists, who in turn acted as a spy network for the complete eradication of Iraqi Kurds. The Kurds re-took their homes when the Americans defeated Saddam, but very strangely, General Petraeus evicted Kurds from the city of Dormeez (spring of 2003), giving the homes back to the Ba'athists whom the Kurds had ejected. One explanation is that the American strategy was to bug the Dormeez homes, and listen in after Ba'athists moved back in. The slowness of the victory over the Insurgency might just be due to a strategy of leaving minor players alone while seeking to use them in finding the king-pins.
Mosul is part of Nineveh (or Ninawa) province. If not in Mosul, I expect Gog to plant his headquarters somewhere in this province. Nineveh was the capital of Assyria, this likely being at least one reason that the anti-Christ is, on multiple occasions in Biblical prophecy, called the "Assyrian." One very relevant example is Isaiah 14:25, where an end-time king of Babylon, likened to Satan, is called an "Assyrian." The Babylon of this Isaiah text is the country (i.e. not the empire), and must without doubt refer to what is now Iraq (for the city of Babylon was smack in the center of Iraq).
I have wondered on occasions whether Gog will be a non-Russian. Perhaps he will be a true Assyrian by blood. A Wikipedia article touching on modern Assyrians claims that they have slight majorities in two counties (Tel Kaif and Al-Hamdaniya) of Nineveh province. The same article then tends to flatly refuse an Assyrian anti-Christ, simply because the Assyrians of Nineveh have been brutally persecuted by the Iraqi Insurgency. It's also doubtful that merely an Assyrian of Iraq could become a world-stage player. I would therefore rather expect a non-Assyrian who enters Iraq (as an outsider) and comes to rule what was once the hub of the Assyrian empire.
I suppose it's possible that Gog could be an Assyrian by blood living outside of the Mosul area. There is some talk that Assyrians formed the Syrians of long ago, but Assyrians spread elsewhere. A pertinent example was in July of 1915, "Russians retreat again and 18,000 Assyrians & Armenians follow them into Russia." The ancient past must have seen millions of Assyrians flush into what would become Russian territory.
In a large work, I traced the Biblical dragon to Arphaxadites of that part of Assyria between the two Zab rivers. I can't explain the entire story here. Arphaxadites were named after Arphaxad, grandfather of Eber, the founder of Hebrews. They lived in the Assyrian city of "Arrapha" or "Arrapachitis," now Kirkuk (Iraq). To read further on this topic as it relates to the Iraqi topic at hand, see my piece on The Dragon Cult. Amazingly, I had traced the Biblical dragon to mythical Ladon...before I realized that it matched "bin-Laden." It could be a coincidence, but one never knows.
Headline in the Drudge Report this morning: "Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs..." Obama of late appears like a closet Republican and a Democrat back-stabber bent on upholding the Christian community. He's even coming out in support of hiring or firing based on faith. What next? Preaching the return of Christ? Is this strategy his own, or of his Democratic strategists? I did read earlier that Dems this election would seek to steal the Christian voters. What better way to poke Rebublicans in the eye?
The reality is, the Obama campaign sees just one threat to losing the election: the idea that he attended a false-Christian church for 20 years. That image needs to be eradicated. We recall that both Bushes promised support for Christian concerns, and neither one delivered anything enough to make evangelicals happy; they are sorely disappointed even with Bush #2. How much more will a Democrat promise us what he won't deliver once in Office? Always remember, Obama is surrounded by snakes, those guiding his campaign strategy. No one with Jesus-like morals would dare be the leading Democrat; it would be like attempting to be the Chief Priest of the Saduccees.
Today, the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, shook hands (with a smile) with Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, at a socialist event in Greece. The fact that the Iraqi president would do so speaks volumes, and turns the anti-Christ's future supporters against the new Iraqi government all the more.
The Jerusalem Post also reports today that Egypt has arrested about 110 terrorists. If Egypt were for the terrorists today, I would not be able to say that the Iraqi Insurgents will attack Egypt after they seize Iraq. My belief that Egypt will be attacked by broken military parties in Iraq, but who yet manage to seize Iraq successfully, was developed in 1980, when I first understood Daniel 11:21-25 in this way. In other words, it is a great testimony for the Daniel prophecy that Egypt, which was the chief enemy of Israel in 1973 (when it launched the Yom Kippur war against Israel), is now at official peace with the country so as to invite an invasion by anti-Israelis. Daniel 11:26 tells that those who eat with the Egyptian leader will betray him.
It is just today that the Jerusalem Post reports on a "WorldPublicOpinion poll of 18 countries," where not one majority among the countries' citizens favor Israel over Palestinians, even with the United States being one of the eighteen countries. Two others, Russia and France, did not have majorities favoring Palestinians over Israel. Those having majorities in favor of Palestinians over Israel were only three: Egypt, Iran, and Turkey (these were the only Middle-Eastern countries to participate in the poll). The poll shows that the anti-Christ might have more Egyptians tending to support him than supporting the Egyptian peace deal with Israel. The same goes with Turkey, for when "the Assyrian" (of Isaiah 10) seizes Turko-Syrian regions (intermediate between the siezure of Iraq and of Israel), most Turks would tend to support him even if the Turkish government won't do so. The poll (which might be intended as a service to the UN) reportedly shows that the countries overwhelmingly want the UN to step foot inside Israel to manage the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Isaiah 10 tends to disclude a Syrian acting as the end-time Assyrian, for we see that he will invade Syrian regions, coastal Arpad for one and interior Damascus for another (10:9). Israelites will apparently receive the mark of the beast, for 10:20 tells that, in the end, "[Israel] will no longer lean on him [i.e. the Assyrian of the text] who struck him. But they will truly lean on YHWH..." I cannot imagine Israelites leaning on Gog. However, I can imagine Israelites leaning on the False Prophet, especially if he is to be an American President, and then taking his mark of the beast. I can imagine the False Prophet stepping into the affairs of Gog as he invades Israel, to make him less problematic for Israelis, and to make the surviving Israelites accept him. I can imagine the UN inside israel at that time (in which the Israeli leaders will have fled or been taken captive).
Jesus is included in this Isaiah prophecy, in 11:1. The verse previous tells that Lebanon will fall in relation to the fall of the Assyrian. Lebanon, this very day, came out with a vicious attack on the Israeli government for Israel's recent invasion into southern Lebanon. Plus, as prophecy tells that the anti-Christ will attack from Israel's north, it suggesting an anti-Christ deal made with Lebanon. This spells out the grave importance in the fact that Iranian-backed Hezbolah, very recently, obtained significant (if not primary) power in the Labanese government. It looks like a movement of God Himself in preparation for the Appointed Time of Jerusalem's fall. Watch your backside, Israel.
Israel signed a truce with Hamas a week or two ago, allowing Palestinain terrorists to re-arm and re-plan. During these several years in which Israel has seriously contemplated a peace deal, Hamas took over the government of Gaza, and Hezbolah took over the government of Lebanon. What makes Israel think that going the whole nine yards by giving Palestinians their own land will somehow cause these groups to refrain from terror? If both Hamas and Hezbolah came out today proimising to end their military tactics, to be re-paid with a Palestinian state inside Israel, do we really think that an ambush by the two groups, and others, would not take place soon after the new state has dug in its heels?
The ambush is being planned as we speak, Palestinian state or not. God will guide the minds of the invaders for success, at the Apponted Time, and His only solution is, not a peace deal with Palestinians, but for the nation of Israel to turn to the Son of God in sincere faith. Prophecy tells that this will not happen.
On the Iraqi front, Anbar province west of Baghdad, which was a stronghold of Sunni Insurgents, will now be turned over by the Americans to Iraqi control. This emphasizes the falling power levels of the ex-Saddam loyalists and therefore of al Qaeda in Iraq.
ABC News reports today: "Senior Pentagon officials are concerned that Israel could carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of the year...[for two, even three, reasons]." Why would the Pentegon disclose that which Israel would like to be a surprise attack? Seems like a bluff at this point, and yet the arguments for the need for a strike are strong: 1) Israel wants to blow up any facility before it makes weapons-grade material, presumed to be sometime in 2009, 2) Israel wants to strike before Russia sells Iran the missiles that will make a strike more difficult, and, 3) Israel wants to strike before Obama is the President. These three reasons point to a strike in 2008, or early 2009 at the latest.
ABC also shows an article (of June 4th) accusing Obama of flip-flopping. Prior to winning the Democratic nomination, he said that it was a disgrace for George Bush not to talk with his enemies in an effort to change their minds. Now he's saying that he will only meet with an Iranian president if that president first accepts what the United States would find in its best interests, which is exactly Bush's position! Obama is a young man, and I don't really think he knows how to handle this world crisis but to follow the steps of others.
I guarantee you this one thing, that more threatening to the American Christian than the Middle-East situation is the Democratic Party and other anti-Christ liberals. I'm not so sure I can disagree with the unreasonable Michael Savage when he claims that "liberalism is mental disorder."
An AP article here is based on new inside information from supposed reliable Iraqi sources. Apparently, three high-level men of Muqtada al-Sadr's team have "squeeled" to the Associated Press what they claim they were not allowed to say, though one needs to consider whether they're dishing out disinformation deliberately. These Iraqi sources tell of the developing triangle from Iran to Hezbolah to so-called "special groups" in Iraq -- i.e. Iraqi Shiites splintered from Muqtada al-Sadr. One motive in offering disinformation could be to deflect focus off of al-Sadr. In other words, Iran might in reality be planning a coup with al-Sadr rather than the accused al-Sadr splinter groups. In any case, a Shiite-based triangle must certainly exist, which can be viewed by prophecy watchers as the major developing power slated to make Gog strong enough for the invasion of Israel from Lebanon.
One emailer suggested I consider al-Sadr himself as Gog. It is true that al-Sadr wants to become the leader of the Iraqi government, and in that way he could fit the Daniel prophecy...but he is not from the far north, nor likely to get a leading position in the end-time Roman empire.
BIG NEWS HERE: On the same day (today) of a report by a anonymous Russian minister that "Iran was 'ready to look seriously at proposals' presented on June 14 by six world powers aimed at getting the Islamic republic to suspend uranium enrichment,", Israeli leaders sent assurances to France, Britain and the United States that ruled out an attack on Teheran in 2008." The Israelis also said that they intend to rely on the diplomatic process for now. It sounds as though the bluff, or call it the saber rattling, worked, and that Iran caved in. However, it's impossible to know what's truly happening behind the scenes on the red-hot telephones. Iran is likely buying time, as Saddam had. I do note that a Russian spokesman came out to announce the Iranian change of heart. In the near future, we'll see whether it really was a change of heart.
The Jerusalem Post has another warning concerning Obama today. It first reminds the world that Israel would have been wiped off the map in 1973 (when Egypt led a war) had Richard Nixon not persuaded the State Department and others to send weapons to Israel. The article then goes on to suggest that Obama might not be so resolute the next time that Israel faces a critical emergency, which, the article ventures to say, will be within the next ten years: "Israel may in the next decade be pushed to the brink of its existence." The message is clear: Obama could let Israel down in her moment of desperation. If he's the False Prophet, he will do more than let Israel down; he will side with Israel's conqueror and attempt to send as many Israelis as possible to eternal hell via the Mark. Blessed are some of those Israelis who are deported at that time. The article predicts that the majority of American Jews will vote for Obama regardless of the obvious risk.
Aside from al-Qaeda in Iraq, there is al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. For years the Afghanistan front has been stable, until the past few weeks. The Taliban, which was ousted from power because it was sheltering Osama bin-Laden, has been rebounding of late, and Bush yesterday announced that more troops will be sent to fight them. Osama is thought to be in Pakistan now, and that front is also building strength.
If correct to peg Osama as the "Ruler of a Covenant" (of Daniel 11:22), and if this covenant is the seven-year war pact found in Daniel 9:27, then it suggests that Osama must remain alive until the final Week begins. It is no secret that he has made pacts with multiple groups, and we can imagine that the Taliban is a part of the covenant, and will likely be a part of the Iraqi seizure and invasion on Israel.
Obama's attitude is to go after Osama but to shun Iraq, but this is just talk, for his election promise has been to pull out of Iraq. "Mr Obama has said he wants to send up to 10,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, where violence has increased as the Taliban and al-Qa'ida regroup. Mr Obama has accused Mr Bush of neglecting the fight in Afghanistan to pursue an unnecessary war in Iraq." Wow. What an ignoramus.
George Bush deployed the military in Iraq, on a long-term basis, to get into an excellent position for the bigger problem, the revolutionary Muslim movement of Iran. Bush also put troops on Iran's other side, in Afghanistan. The Democrats ruined his chances of invading Iran, and now Iran is almost capable of doing what Bush hoped to stop. The ball may now turn to a Democratic President, who will be Obama, and here he is, at this very critical time, still criticizing the presence of the military in Iraq. Will Obama waste the troops in Iraq and not use them to invade Iran before it acquires a nuclear capabilty? His official position is to withdraw one or two brigades per month so that all troops are out of Iraq within 16 months.
Why would he talk about going after bin-Laden with an additional 10,000 troops and not undertsnad the need to blow out Iran's wick? Not that he could do anything about Iran if God is allowing it to survive, but at least Obama could shut-up already on criticizing the only worldly thing that can stop Iran in the coming year or two. Bush's timing for placing troops on the Iranian border was just in time, but, apparently, to no avail. Perhaps the Democrats don't realize that God has made them fools in order to allow Iran (and Syria) to escape Bush. To emphasize how mentally sick Democrats are, they would be for Iraqi troops and opposed to troops in Afghanistan if Bush had been opposed to troops in Iraq and placed troops only in Afghanistan. This is how Democrats deal with this radical-Muslim crisis, thinking only for their political success.
ZOW-WIE! It's now later in the day and I can't believe my eyes: "Iran expressed readiness to freeze its uranium enrichment program in return for lifting the international sanctions imposed on it, Channel 2 analyst Ehud Ya'ari revealed Thursday evening." Isn't this the same Iran spouting off up until last week that sanctions would never work? How has Ahmadinejad given in so quickly? Let's not be fooled, Iran still wants to blow Israel away; Israel still wants to strike Iran's facilities; and Bush still wants to overthrow and replace Iran's Muslim movement.
Obama's Latest Flip Flop is a Doozie: "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his website...Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month."" That's out just today. His chief strategist is now saying that Obama's pledge was never hard and fast, and that changes in plan might be needed depending on "events on the ground." What if commanders on the ground insist that the troops must all remain in Iraq, for a few years? Stay tuned for another flip-flop in the other direction, as Democrats cry foul. Or will they?
Perhaps Democrats voters will just accept the fact they they've been the willing fools of their Democrat leaders, and go into remission. The main thing is not whether their leaders are honest, but whether they're in power. This is what makes Democrats happy. When Hillary was caught in bold-faced lies concerning sniper fire that never happened, they yet supported her (though they would have condemned Bush to Hell for the same). When Bill committed adultery, on multiple occasions, they supported him...as if their leader would be faithful and reliable to them when he's not to his wife. Why is this relevant? Because the Democrat base (about 25 percent of Americans) will be Satan's activist tools, and persecute the people of Truth. Many Democrats don't know the truth anymore, for to them it has become relative, and political agenda steers what they believe to be truth on any given month. Plus, many Democrats love falsehood, and live by it. This is our coming battle, even as it's been our social battle for over a generation.
Well, well. I've just learned (from Int. Herald Tribune) that Obama flipped back to his original position already:
"Senator Barack Obama said Thursday [that's today] that he might 'refine' his plans for a phased withdrawal from Iraq after meeting with military commanders there later this summer. But later [on the same day], he hastily held a second news conference: to emphasize his commitment to withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. '...But for Obama, who has been accused recently of changing his positions on campaign finance and a wiretapping law, the suggestion that he was undermining a central premise of his candidacy holds particular perils."
But, Obama, what if the commanders want different than you do? But, Obama, what if the situation calls for something different than merely your thoughtless campaign promise, which was made merely to get yourself elected rather than on what's best in Iraq? Isn't it true that Democrat voters want the troops out just because Bush wants them in?
Apparently, the pressure from Democrats was immmediate, leading quickly to a second news conference. In the meantime, we got a small peek at what Obama truly wants: to take over the Iraqi situation, and deal with it his way. For the next many months, the question will always be: will his voters permit him to do so?
The United Nations issued a mandate allowing the United States to operate in Iraq until December 31, 2008. In previous years, the UN (i.e. it's Security Council) extended the mandate, but this last time around the mandate would be extended "only one more year." In light of this, what can we predict with the Democratic Party taking over the Iraqi situation in January of 2009? What is the UN expected to do in Iraq when they see Democrats scaling down American troops progressively, without hope of Democrats changing their minds? Who will fill the void in Iraq? How can Russia allow itself to be minimized this time around, now that it's back on its feet politically and economically?
Gog is supposed to enter Iraq with smooth talk, and is yet to be rejected by the Iraqi people (Daniel 11:21). How could such a rejected one enter successfully, and become a leader of the nation, without a military invasion? One answer is, with the UN behind him.
Bush and Iraq are working now at ironing out their own Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) because, according to the UN mandate, all coalition forces must be out of Iraq by December 31, 2008. If something should undermine SOFA, it would invigorate the Insurgents. In yesterday's VetVoice, we read: "A majority of the Iraqi parliament wrote to the US congress last week rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that US forces leave."
Plus, when the Iraqi Prime Minister (Maliki) requested the last mandate extension (in December of 2007), he specifically asked that it be the last extension. Iraq now wants the Americans to ask permission before they conduct a military operation. Bush must be climbing the walls, as this aspect is promising to sink the SOFA for 2008. Clearly, Iraq wants to go it alone, or nearly so, in 2009. Put that together with events on the U.S. political scene, and it would appear that the time is ripe for Gog to enter. Although there is nothing that I know of restricting the UN from granting another extension, it can't do so apart from a green light of the Iraqi parliament. The large successes in Iraq this year are perhaps the very things that will cause parliament to pass on requesting another extension.
What if Russia, seeing these up-in-the-air circumstances, offers itself to the Iraqi government as a back-up system should the Iraqi military flounder? Might Iraq accept, and then tell the Americans to go back home? In being accepted, wouldn't Russia need to send military commanders to Baghdad to familiarize with Iraqi leaders? Couldn't one military leader be Gog?
If the question is, who more likely will advance an invasion on Egypt, Gog or Iran, the answer would be Iran. That is, logic suggests that under Iranian urging and back-up, Gog will consent to invade various Arab states (Iranians are not Arabs, but of Scythian, Aryan, and Gorgon background, similar to Russians). An invasion on Egypt seems a logical choice for reasons already mentioned, but it should now be added that Iran and Sudan (to Egypt's immediate south) have a comprehensive military pact on the go, including the sales of Iranian weapons. One of the features of the pact is mutual military protection/assistance, where needed. Interestingly, in the list of Ezekiel 38 (where various nations are found that together invade Israel), one is Cush. Some Bible translations, perhaps misleadingly, enter "Ethiopia" in place of "Cush," but the point is that this old nation is widely interpreted as Sudan.
Therefore, if one has wondered how Sudan (or Ethiopia) could possibly become involved in an invasion of Israel with the entire nation of Egypt standing in the way, the answer is the take-down of Egypt first. Prophecy writers on the topic of Gog's invasion don't generally mention Egypt's fall because they don't view Daniel 11:21-31 as pertaining to the end-time anti-Christ, and if they do, they don't view Gog as the anti-Christ.
The webpage here explains to Democrats concisely the threat that Iranians pose. The present Iranian administration notified the world, while meeting in 2006 with Sudan to discuss a partrnership, that Iran wishes to share it's nuclear-enrichment technologies with "other countries"...the purpose of which is to strengthen Iran's Islamic movement.
According to a state-run television station, the president of Sudan (Omar al-Bashir) commented to Iran's spiritual leader (Khamenei) "that Iran's achievement in enriching uranium was a 'great success for the world of Islam,'" and that "Iran's capability and progress is, in fact, an increase in the power of the Islamic world.' Then we have this: "'The Iranian and Sudanese governments and nations are friends and brothers, and will maintain support for one another,' Ahmadinejad said at a press conference with Bashir." These developments fully explain why Europeans will oppose Gog (with "ship of Kittim") when he invades Egypt.
It makes me re-consider whether I have been correct to identify the False Prophet as an American president, for surely the term applies well to Islam, and moreover there is much sense for an Islamic False Prophet to assist Gog in the invasion of Israel and her partners. The problem is, I cannot envision how Gog will become a leader in Europe with a Muslim False Prophet, nor can I envision a mark of the beast enforced worldwide by a Muslim. Could it be that the mark of the beast will only touch the Arab world??? I have no attitude that what I personally foresee must be the absloute truth.
The rise of Obama has satisfied my outlook because it may explain how the False Prophet can be a Western power, an enforcer of the mark, an elevator of Gog into European affairs, and a helper of the anti-Israeli Muslim world.
Iran gave Javier Solana (EU's foregn-affairs chief) an official response today as to whether it will curtail its nuclear-enrichment programs. The content of the response has not been made public, yet. Waiting.
There is nothing new this morning in the major media on all fronts so-far discussed. It's a good time to mention Oprah Winfrey, as she has been targeted by several online Christian webmasters for her pushing new-age Christianity. For example, she said on one show to new-age fanatic, Shirely MacLeane: "When you connected to the higher Self...knowing that you can do anything that you want to do - is it what other people describe as being 'born again'?" That's a loaded question intended to hook evangelicals/fundamentalists to new-age mentality. Shirley responded: "Yes, probably." Put it this way, that if Oprah were a true believer, she wouldn't have featured MacClaine.
In short, Oprah believes that Jesus is not the only way to God, and that God is a "force." In some cases, people coming to believe in God as a force might be on the right track to discovering that He is a person watching over their lives, and an emotional God who can become jealous when we choose to delight in things dishonoring Him. However, when someone as influential as Oprah begins to push a false-Christian viewpoint, and as she was probably responsible for Obama's success over Hillary, she becomes a part of my anti-Christ topic.
Jesus said many false prophets and teachers would arise just before His Return; I see two different kinds: those who on most occasions teach sound Biblical doctrine but are on the other hand pillaging Christians via their financial offerings, and those who seek to slowly change Biblical doctrine to what it isn't. The New-Age movement seeks to re-define Christianity, and major media aside from Oprah are actively involved in this plot. This is very good news where it exposes more easily those among us who are not true/solid believers.
I'll keep reporting on false-Christian movements as they relate to Obama...who by the way came out this week with yet more lamb-like devil speak. He said that abortion should be lawful only if the mother's physical life is in danger (a statement having great appeal to pro-lifers), and yet affirmed that he is still for Roe v Wade (as an effort to keep his Democrat voters happier in the face of what could be viewed as a pro-life position).
Another topic that I can introduce briefly here is Togarmah, one of the Gog-supporting nations listed in Ezekiel 38. While most prophecy writers tend to identify it with Turkey, I tend to disagree. In my in-depth hunt for Gogi roots, I found the Tocharians. They once lived on the east side of the Tigris river, and in that Iraqo-Iranian theater they came to live in association with an Assi peoples. I have seen these peoples described as "Asir," looking like the makings of "Assyria." The Assi are thought by some to have become Azov-region (north shore of Black sea) Cimmerians...who are typically traced by historians back to ancient Iran. Moreover, Cimmerians are typically identified as Gomerians, while Gomer was the father of Togarmah. In fact, Gomer is likewise a part of the Ezekiel-38 list. The problem is, Cimmerians spread throughout the earth, and even the Welsh claim to be from Cimmerians. Prophecy writers often identify modern Gomer as Germany, but this may be hasty.
I learned that Tocharians also lived in far-north Russia in the life time of Ezekiel, jibing with Ezekiel's phrase, "far north," as the location of Togarmites. One then has reason to assume that Ezekiel's Gomerians were none other than the Azov Cimmerians, living in what is now southern Russia. These evolved into Sarmations of the north-Caucasus realm when they hooked up with "Gargarians," which I assume for good reasons were Georgians...from Gorgons of Parthia. Sarmations went on to become the Rox-As peoples, also called Roxolani (= Rox-Alans, probably a Rosh/Hros alliance with the Alan tribe of Sarmations). Roxolani eventually moved to far-north Russia (west of the Tocharians; the latter migrated toward Siberia). One can then view both Gomer and Togarmah as major constituents of what would later become Russia, and Russians...so that we need not seek them in modern Germany or Turkey.
In this picture, there is absolutely no reason to flatly deny, as some prophecy writers do, that Moscow was named after the Mushki/Meshech (yet another Gog-supporting nation in Ezekiel's list). In fact, Sarmation make-up was said to be a mix of Gargarians with Amazons (passing through Cimmerian Azov), and I have good reasons to identify Amazons as the Meshech. There is good reason to identify the Gogi with Gargarians, for Georgians to this day are called "Gogi." However, Ezekiel's Gog was "of Magog" (i.e. located in the land of Magog), which points to a branch of Georgians north of present Georgia, and therefore to what is now Russia.
Perhaps the threat of greatest concern -- at the moment -- comes from Syria, for this nation is the funnel between the militant Muslim movement at large and the double evil in the Israeli theater: Hezbolah and Hamas. Recently, Russia's Foreign Minister (Sergey Lavrov) strongly suggested that Russian weapons are not in the hands of Hezbolah. I tend to believe him, for if the facts were otherwise, it would de-stabilize Russia's reputation in the UN, and its growing relationship with the EU. This doesn't necessarily mean that Russia is not somehow involved (or seeking to be) in the Muslim end-game, but that Russia needs to do so very tactfully as to not get caught.
I would challenge Lavrov where he says that Israel and Russia have the common goal of fighting terrorism. Sure, Russia opposes all terrorism affecting Russia directly, but when has Russia's military or intelligence so much as offered to become key in capturing important Iraqi Insurgents? Where have we seen Russia's eagerness to go into Iraq/Afghanistan to help the Americans succeed?
I checked Jerusalem Post just now to find that Iran's response to the EU has leaked out: "Iran's nuclear program remains unchanged, said a government spokesman Saturday [today], indicating that Teheran has no plans to meet the West's central demand that it stop enriching uranium." In other words, Iran wants to talk with the EU, but not to give the EU what it wants.
NEXT IRAQ UPDATE
The 2016 prediction for Armageddon (from my human intellect and therefore subject to retraction) is explained here.
If you've come to this book beginning at this webpage, see the rest of the Gog-Iraq story in PART 2, accessed from the
Table of Contents