The Jerusalem Post says today that Syria has expressed a willingness to betray Iran in favor of establishing a peace deal with Israel. I'm waiting to see whether this is mere media exaggeration to hook readership, or whether it has teeth. We could expect a Syrian peace treaty with Israel for explaining Gog's prophecied invasion of both Syria and Egypt.
If Syria backs the Hezbolah only for re-acquiring the Golan Heights, then it's possible for Syria's current ties with Iran to be only that deep, and not as deep as to want Israel's destruction. Yet Syria also backs Hamas, a group wanting the desolation of Israel.
This news comes after days of Turkish-sponsored talks between Syria and Israel. The Post put it this way:
According to the report, the sides have already formulated a sketch of a peace deal and have told the Turkish mediators that they are willing to pay the price, which, for the Syrians, would include cutting off Iran.The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the report."
I'll keep you posted. This comes at a time when Iran is seeking to build stronger ties with Lebanon. For the underlying purpose of this effort (= eradication of Israel), Iran greatly values Syria's new-found friendship with Lebanon. The idea that Syria would now betray Iran, and moreover remove its military from Lebanese soil (which is a special clause of the Turkish-sponsored peace-deal talks), would sorely disappoint Ahmadinejad...wherefore we should hear some poison spewing from his lips if it's true that Syria is considering a deal with Israel (which is more likely a deal with the globalists, as they are likely offering "gifts" to Syria in return for the peace deal).
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday [yesterday] that Lebanese great people will clinch bigger victories and that Iran will always stand by the Lebanese nation.Zain Mousawi, for his part, said that Iran and Lebanon enjoy longstanding historical and cultural relations, adding that he is determined to take useful steps for expanding bilateral ties during his mission."
It is this Iran-Lebanon alliance that I expect to become a key in the prophetic invasion of Israel, though I should add that the prophetic picture isn't at all clear on this. For all I know, Gog with his Iranian supporters will be opposed by Lebanon when the invasion finally takes place. In fact, Iran itself could oppose Gog's invasion; it's necessary only for Iranians -- not the nation itself -- to be Gog's major ally. At this point in time, it would appear that the nation of Iran will support Gog, but with Ahmadinejad gone from power, one never knows.
The two-week deadline that the globalists gave Iran for deciding whether to abandon it's nuclear ambitions is nearly here. Iran is expected to remain defiant; the globalists are expected to resist use of military force to make Iran comply. It's the Saddam-Hussein situation all over again. A collossal strike on Iran's nuclear facilities at this time by the United States would not necessarily undermine Iran's involvement in Gog's Israeli invasion, but would more-likely be one of those terrible consequences that Iran is now promising. While Russia was too weak to do anything about Bush's invasion of Iraq, Russia is now confident enough to do something about similar aggression against Iran. In fact:
"Russia successfully launched sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile on August 1, 2008. The launch was performed from nuclear submarine..."
That's today in Pravda news. Launching missiles is often a sign of warning to the enemy, and this has got to be one of those instances. In fact the article goes on to say that "The regular check-up of the nation’s naval strategic nuclear forces has been conducted successfully, the [Russian] official added." In other words, "we're ready, U.S., if that's the game you want to play with Iran."
While a U.S. strike against nuclear facilities is not in itself all-out war with Iran, the Muslim nation promises to make it an all-out war -- which the globalists could turn to their advantage in their quest to control the entire Middle East-- and Russia cannot sit back to watch the West take Iran as it has taken Iraq. Be happy, world, the globalists must be stopped, and they will be stopped. They have been stealing your money in countless ways. Their day has almost arrived.
Don't fret, just get yourself a place to live where you won't need town water, the grocery store, or the electric grid. You get it. I'm shopping for a propane-powered electricity generator and some batteries right now (enough batteries for lights; the generator's to run power tools when needed). I'm waiting for solar panels to come down in price, as expected of the foil types. I'm purchasing a large propane tank this month, and amassing firewood as we speak. I have two properties, the retreat being 100 acres, full of ground water, good soil, and plenty of mixed forest.
In response to a question posed by a CNN journalist, an Iranian official today claimed that the Geneva talks gave Iran one month (not merely two weeks) to respond. The UN is not being petty about it and will give a little more than two weeks, Solana said today. This is the situation to watch at this time, as a strike against Iran is the best excuse I can think of for Gogi entry into Iraq.
A week after the Obama trip to Europe has him tied with McCain at 44 percent (Gallup), though my understanding is that McCain is ahead among likely voters.
August 2
I'm not sure what to make of a DEBKAFile article of yesterday. The article seems to say that the Syrian agent brokering the Turkey-sponsored peace talks with Israel has been forced to resign. Here's how it puts it
"DEBKAfile’s Exclusive Middle East sources reveal that not only has prime minister Ehud Olmert’s chief of staff and lead negotiator with Syria, Yoram Turbowicz, decided to resign, but Syrian foreign minister Walid Mualem, the leading proponent of talks with Israel in Damascus, is also on his way out."
No explanation was given for these failures, but they both come after the Jerusalem Post reported that Syria was on the brink of betraying Iran (and therefore making a break-through with Israel). The article doesn't tell why the Israeli agent quit, nor even if the reason is related to the peace talks. The article does tell that the talks were ended in frustration: "According to our sources...Turkish officials who brokered [the talks] have informed prime minister Tayyep Erdogan that the initiative had run into the sand."
The article continues: "Turkey, envisaging the breakdown of its initiative, has hared off in a new direction, a bid to mediate between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas." The article then emphasizes Hamas, telling first that Jordan has just met with "Hamas high-ups Muhammad Nazal and Muhammad Nasser."" This meeting no doubt discussed the Hamas' breakdown in relations with the West Bank Palestininas earlier this week. I'm assuming that Jordan urged reconciliation. The article seems to support reconciliation by telling that the West Bank leader (Abbas) "is heading for a deal with Hamas, rather than a peace agreement with Israel." See modern map of Israel.
I never know when Israeli news is being inflated for surprise value, and it confuses me at times, but in this case the article gives evidence for a surprising effort toward reconciliation by reporting that "the Palestinian leader [Abbas] ordered the release of all the Hamas operatives his security forces detained on the West Bank [earlier this week] in retaliation for the Hamas purge of [Abbas'] Fatah in Gaza. He gave the order, even though Hamas has not called off its purge." Surprising, to say the least, but if releasing some 200 men without promise of a returned favor isn't enough, it's also reported that Abbas "is moving forward to negotiate a national unity government" with Hamas.
This soars above surprising, into the realm of shocking. It sounds like Abbas is betraying the Israeli peace talks and instead going the radical way of Hamas in dealing with Israel. It sounds like Abbas believes that Hamas will embrace this change, and to prove his seriousness, he's releasing Hamas prisoners. Israel, knowing what's going on, and what it could mean for its security, must have given Syria a large incentive to cause it to consider betraying Iran and Hamas, but then things changed...no doubt from pressure applied on Syria from Israel's dread enemies.
Keep in mind that Abbas' Fatah party was founded by the late Arafat (a terrorist turned politician), and that hardly anyone in Israel believed that Fatah would remain at peace with Israel after engaging Israel politically (i.e. rather than miltarily). The belief has been wide that Fatah would attain political gains and afterward use military power to finish Israel off. For this purpose, it needs Hamas. The rift between Hamas and Fatah has to do with Hamas' refusal to seek phase one: peace with Israel for the purpose of obtaining a Palestinian state in Israel. The idea is that from this state, the final, military phase could be affected since a state has its own space and it own police/military units.
Another important development is in Lebanon; it looks as though the country will not take away Hezbolah's weapons. Al-Jazeera puts it this way today: "Lebanon's newly formed national unity government has agreed on a policy statement that may allow Hezbollah to keep its weapons." It was the West-sponsored side of the unity government that wanted to remove the weapons, arguing that only the government should be armed, but the momentum lately has been with the anti-West side. (Article here)
Are regular readers losing faith that Gog must arise in Iraq? I'm not. Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbolah cannot defeat Israel even if all three united. Iran must be working on something bigger, something resembling a mushroom. Israel knows that this alone would work. There are thousands of Muslims who'd carry such a bomb on their backs (so to speak) and pull the wires any day in Israel's major cities. But prophecy does not paint a nuclear picture during the initial invasion of Israel. Instead, we see Gog with clouds of men covering Israel's mountains. Sheer numbers.
Good morning. Got up to find that Gaza clashes between Fatah and Hamas took place as I slept, with some dead. More Fatah men have been arrested by Hamas. So much for an alliance between the two at this time. Divisions everywhere...until Gog arises to unite them. I believe that disunity is God's method of keeping the Appointed Day of Israel's tribulation at bay. When unity among anti-Israelis becomes a reality, the Week will begin. (Article here)
I also awoke to find that Germany leads the effort against Iran. While Javier Solana seems almost indifferent to the two-week deadline that's up today, the German foreign minister (Frank-Walter Steinmeier) was adamant that Iran stop "dallying" and "play[ing] for time." The problem is, Iran has already spoken, so why would the UN bother to make such statements? Why would the UN wait another week or two before taking action? Who really is wasting time here? The UN doesn't want sanctions against Iran because it knows that the Iranian people will be impoverished by them. What will the UN do? Even if they succeed at removing Ahmadinejad, the religious leaders will remain, and it's they who are pushing for the atom bomb.
The better alternative is to strike the nuclear facilities after giving their employees warning not to show up for work. Yes, this will spoil the element of surprise, but it will reap better PR. The UN doesn't need to ask McCain whether he'd be willing to strike Iran, but it does need to ask Obama. If the UN can garner a promise from Obama that he would do it should he become President, the UN might ask Bush to relent and allow Obama to look after it instead.
The Israelis have reason not to trust Obama. Today, Obama did another flip flop that Democrats disdain. Seeing that McCain is making headway in the polls as per Democrat opposition to off-shore drilling, Obama has just announced that he might allow some off-shore drilling. I think there is more to this change of attutude than election concerns, for there is a story online about Nick Rockefeller telling a certain Aaron Russo, in 2000, that globalists aim do two things: 1) microchip the masses, and, 2) go into Afghanistan to install an oil pipeline.
Amazing, is it not, that just when the microchip part of Rockefeller's prediction gets some teeth as per the recent Bilderberg meeting, Obama is preaching that he'll transfer the U.S. military to Afghanistan. I really do think that Obama is in bed with oil-producing globalists. Poor Democrats; the hypocricy is that they accused Bush of going into the Middle East for oil concerns. Will they now elect a man who uses the American military to secure oil for globalist fat-cats?
It certainly explains why Obama would need to start changing his offshore-drilling tune now, before the election, as it would look too bad should he oppose it now and then support it once elected. By saying now that he opposes it, except in some circumstances, he plays both sides...as is his style. He's looking very much like the typical politician that everyone despises, yet liberals will attempt to elect him, and, as they did with Bill Clinton, they will paint him as someone great and admirable just because he's the Democrat leader. Core Democrats are all image, no substance.
An Al-Jazeera article of June 23 of this year talked about Iraq's oil law in-the-making:
"Iraq is pushing ahead with a controversial oil law which critics say threatens to hand over the country's resources to foreign-owned companies, throwing the country into further sectarian chaos....With the bulk of the contracts going to Western oil companies, the real motive for the US invasion of Iraq has now become abundantly clear.
...The Iraqi cabinet is yet to pass the controversial oil law...the al-Maliki government...say the law should be enacted quickly in order to pave the way for international oil companies to start investing in the dilapidated and war-hit Iraqi oil sector."
Democrats will say "I told you so" but the point here is Russia. What does Russia think of this development? Before the Bush war, Russia had access to Iraqi oil; now the profits appear to be going West. There is only one thing to do, Putin must be thinking: sieze Iraq by installing a Russia-friendly government.
Over the past week, the issue of whether Ayman al Zawahri has been killed or not has been debated. This man is the co-founder of al-Qaeda, and he seems to me to be a good candidate for leading Gog into an Egyptian invasion.
"A Pakistani Taliban spokesman denied on Saturday a U.S. media report that al Qaeda number two, Ayman al Zawahri, might have been killed or wounded in a U.S. missile strike in Pakistan's border region last Monday.'Zawahri has been killed by them several times. But once again this claim is wrong. This is baseless,' Maulvi Omar told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location.
[Zawahri and bin-Laden] are believed to hiding somewhere in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan."
Assuming that Obama goes into Afghanistan under the pretense of capturing terrorists, when in reality it's for oil pipelines that skincode-pushing globalists wish to control there, the chances are slim that Obama will strike Iran, for the men behind Obama would not want to rock the boat when there is an easy way into Afghanistan at this time. Some conspiracy theorists suggest that the recent sudden rise of the Taliban is due to calculated strategies of globalists in need of an excuse to go into Afghanistan. In any case, the timing of the uprising is perfect for an Obama entry, thus giving Russia a crack at entering Iraq.
I'll keep you posted on Iraq's "controversial oil law," as I suspect that Russia will apply some pressure (if it isn't already) to get it changed. It suddenly appears that the oil deals being dished out by Iraq will act as incentive to bring Gog into the fray of Iraqi politics, which should expose him in the visible open, soon.
"As of June 2008, the [Iraqi oil] law was still stalled in parliament. The Iraqi Oil Ministry announced plans to go ahead with small one or two year no-bid contracts to Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — once partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and smaller firms to service Iraq’s largest fields....The Bush administration hired the consulting firm BearingPoint to help write the law in 2004. The bill was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in February 2007..."
One could argue that, since America freed Iraq from Saddam, some financial reward for the United States is appropriate. There is no evidence that Bush went into Iraq to seize oil, but it could certainly have been on his mind as a secondary adventure.
Russia, until 2007, was laid back and low-key concerning Iraq because it appeared that Bush was losing all; Putin merely had to wait out Bush's term. The tide has since turned, and waiting for more time to pass should only re-inforce the American hand in Iraq, Russia must be fearing. Something needs to be done to curb the situation, and even Obama has turned out to be a lost cause for Putin, since Obama's foreign-policy backers are anti-Communist. Is it now or never for Russia'a comeback attempt in the Iraqi oil industry? Almost. The irony is that Iraq under Saddam had been willing to privatize (a rare approach for Arab oil producers) its oil fields to Russia (not to mention France).
Note that July came and went without the Bush-expected deal on American troops in Iraq. We are now so close to Bush's last month that Iraq merely needs to stall for time in tossing both this deal and the unpopular Oil Law. As you can see, the Oil Law was born when the Iraqi government was practically non-existent, and became an approved bill while the government was yet weak. Another article on the topic says: "An oil barrel in most of Iraq’s oilfields costs between 50 cents and one dollar to extract. Iraq's fields are also proven, and investing in them is risk-free." (Article here)
Think about how much money is going to Arabs everytime we fill up on gas, and Democrats refuse to allow more oil exploration in America. These are the people who have been raising the confidence of Muslim radicals, in multiple ways, to great heights. I remind you that Daniel paints the anti-Christ as a confident one. Expect great soul energy to come in combination with Gog's empire building.
My reading up on the situation tells that Bush is threatening Iraq in order to get the Oil Law passed. Moreover, the law was made one of the benchmarks that the Bush administration set up to signal the time for the start of American withdrawal. It is no wonder if the Iraqi officials would begin to view Bush with contempt at this time so as to send him away with empty hands.
At iraqupdates.com (not my site), we read: "Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Shahrastani called on Russian companies to participate in the competitions on oil projects...after approving the oil law" (May of 2007). The article makes it appear that Russia would only get the oil deal if it forgives Iraq's multi-billion dollar debt. (Article here)
By the way, the above website might be a good one to bookmark (I just did) if you want details in Iraqi developments. There's at least a dozen and a half stories for August 1st alone. One of them concerns a large demonstration organized by al-Sadr in an effort to keep the Iraqi government from signing the long-term Bush deal. Remember, if Bush doesn't get the deal, American troops may need to be getting out of Iraq immediately. As Bush has seen the possible writing on the wall, he has already announced a likely troop withdrawal for September. If the deal isn't made by the end of August, I'd expect similar withdrawal statements for October. Putin is rubbing his hands together, and hope is rising on his face. Yes we can, he shouts, with or without Obama.
Well, just after the Jerusalem Post repiorrted the possibility that Syria might be willing to cut ties with Iran, the Islamic News (IRNA) today has quite the contrary picture:
"Syrian President Bashar al-Assad heading a high ranking delegation arrived in Tehran on Saturday [today]...Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem and a number of high ranking Syrian officials are accompanying the Syrian president.
The Syrian president is to confer with his Iranian counterpart President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other high ranking officials on issues of mutual interests as well as regional developments."
That's the same foreign minister in charge of the Israeli-Syria peace talks, the one likely to have given Israel the impression of Syria's willingness to betray Iran. DEBKAfile says that the meeting was scheduled a week from now; perhaps the re-scheduling is for re-assuring Iran as quickly as possible that Syria is not serious about a betrayal of Iran. Whatever happened at that last Turkey-sponsored meeting, Ahmadinejad will hear of it today if he hasn't already.
The DEBKAfile today paints a scenario opposite mine. It sees the recent Bush talks with Iran not as a ruse prior to an Iran strike, but as a true weakness and a seeking to protect U.S. oil-price interests. The DEBKAfile simultaneously speaks of a cooling in Bush-Israeli relations, as if to say that Bush might abandon Israel at this time in favor of having an Iranian relationship. It's possible that Bush is "drunk" at this time, but then again maybe not. If Bush has become colder toward Israel at this time, it's due to Olmert's "inability" to come through with a peace deal. Bush is saying, "If you want to warm things up with me, Mr, Olmert, split Jerusalem." On second thought, maybe he is drunk.
I do believe that major Western nations will abandon Israel when their costs are too high to maintain an Israeli relationship. I don't think there has been any indication from the Bush administration that this point has been reached, but perhaps it has decided that the consequences of an Iranian strike are too grave. All options are on the table, by which I mean to say that I'm not sticking tenaciously to my theory that Bush seeks to strike Iran after causing the nation to drop its guard.
Those readers who are weak in faith, and those who don't trust Biblical prophecy, let me ask you what you think the chances are for Jerusalem to be the centerpiece of controversy leading to an Armageddon scenario when prophecy predicted many centuries ago that Jerusalem would be desolated with Armageddon as the result within 3.5 years.
August 3
The Syrian president (Assad) in Iran this weekend has simply said that Iran has the right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The Iranian State TV's website, which is not to be trusted whatsoever for telling the truth, "reported that Assad responded to [Iranian spiritual leader] Khamenei by saying that he was 'happy that the meeting took place at a time when ... we are witnessing great achievements on part of the Islamic resistance group [= code for Hezbolah] in Lebanon and the strengthening of Hamas in Palestine, while witnessing the weakening of our enemies more than ever before." (Article here) It's a vitriolic statement, the intention of which must be to re-assure Muslims that Syria's position has not changed. If you happen to follow Iranian media statements made by top leaders, you will discover that they lie bold-faced to the Iranian people. In the case above, however, words have been placed in the mouth of Assad if they are untrue, for which reason there may be truth to them. In an article by Haaretz today, we read: "But Assad also came to Tehran to explain his talks with Israel - not to excuse them. This is the most troubling bone of contention between the two allies, and Iran has yet to comment officially on it." (Article here)
By the way, the "resistence movement" in Lebanon always refers to Hezbolah, which portrays itself as a defensive group, and Israel as the aggressor, in order to legitimize its possession of weapons and its positioning on the northern Israeli border. On the other hand, Hamas portrays itself offensively, having as an official mandate to wipe Israel away even if Israel seeks a peace settlement. Perhaps by God's will, Hamas is set back by its own Palestinian people, in the Fatah organization.
I am disappointed with the Jerusalem Post for not yet addressing it's claim of days ago that Syria was at the very least open to betraying Iran. The title of the article was itself plain: "Syria willing to cut Iran ties for peace with Israel.' However, I realize that Israel's officials at the Turkey talks are banned from telling all details of the negotiations, though they would tell of this if they wanted the talks to end. They may wish for the talks to continue simply because they saw a willingness in Assad (under sertain conditions) to make a break with Iran. There may be some leverage being applied on Assad from the French leader to break with Iran, but the key to Syria's change of tune should prove to be in this report by Israeli National News:
"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has told Damascus that he is prepared to cede the Golan to Syria in exchange for Syria’s agreement to enter into direct talks with Israel, according to sources in the Knesset."
This report was made on July 30, just two days before the Jerusalem Post announded the Syrian breakthrough. It should be added that "The Prime Minister's Office denied the claims," which were made by Israeli opposition parties.
Does it sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me for Olmert to give away the Golan Heights merely for the Syrian promise to hold "direct" (i.e. without Turkey in the middle) talks? In other words, there must have been an understanding in the code, "direct talks," that for Syria's part it would need to give Israel something large in return, which would of course be the promise to cease support for terrorist groups funded by Iran. In fact, the article says that "Olmert declared a willingness to present Syria with a 'true alternative' to partnership with Iran and Hizbullah." My take is that Syria has been repeatedly presented with the option of obtaining the Golan for Hezbolah, but it must be willing to feign a betrayal of Hezbolah and Iran.
Israeli agents at the Turkey talks realized that Syria was likely feigning, and the talks failed. Israel became suspicious because Syria wanted Golan "in advance" of making any promises; the article says as much: "Meanwhile, according to MK Yisrael Katz (Likud), the Syrians have agreed to direct talks with Israel on the condition that Israel gives them the Golan Heights in advance."
My being at Israel National News (= Arutz Sheva) website for the article above has reaped an important related story out today:
"Syrian President Bashar Assad's top aide and adviser, General Mohammed Suleiman, was assassinated on Friday, according to Arab news sources.Suleiman, who was also Syria's liaison officer to the Hizbullah terrorist organization in Lebanon, was shot and killed by an unidentified sniper in the Syrian port city of Tartous.
Syrian authorities tried unsuccessfully to prevent publication of the news. The country's Albawaba newspaper, which reported the incident, speculated that Israel might have been behind the killing."
A larger article on the assassination says: "According to the [Free Syria] Web site, Suleiman was also a member of Syria's Baath Party, and held the government's Lebanon portfolio." Amazing. This attacks the very heart of Syria's interests in Lebanon. I don't know if this dead man is related by blood to Lebanese president, Michel Suleiman. If the killer was an agent of the Israeli government, the assassination should cement Assad's ties to Iran and Hezbolah for a long term. Armed combat in Triploi (northern Lebanon) continued on Friday, so that the killer may have been of an anti-Syrian faction in Tripoli.
On the Afghan-Pakistan front, we find a serious development holding promise for al-Qaeda's obtainment of Pakistan's nuclear facilities. Bush provided the Pakistani prime minister (Yusuf Raza Gillani) evidence -- of which the reluctant prime minister has since confessed is fair evidence -- that Pakistan's intelligence people were behind a Taliban-supported drive that included a recent bombing in Kabul (Afghanistan's capital). Once Pakistani Intelligence becomes controlled by terrorists, the government itself, and therefore all of its nuclear programs, could fall to the terrorists. This is a grim view in light of the Taliban's alliance with al-Qaeda. However...(Article here)
Bush is responding with a severe tack, and the situtaion promises to bring more US troops into Afghanistan as an order of priority. If true what is said about a globalist plot to control/build oil pipelines in Afghanistan by bringing in American military, it's possible that the Americans (not necessarily the Bush people) caused the bombing in Kabul, and that the Americans framed Pakistan's Intelligence, ISI. The Bush evidence was, after all, merely a telephone conversation that supposedly linked Pakistan's Intelligence to the bombing. A telephone call can be fabricated by a good impersonator? The question is not whether or not there are secret Taliban supporters in ISI (for in fact all sides believe they exist), but whether the recent uprising has been sponsored by ISI.
Since it's the foreign-affairs people backing Obama that want the pipelines, they are suspect as the agents behind the recent Taliban uprising...especially as Brzezinski has previous experience in raising the Taliban to violence.
Still no word on where al-Qaeda in Diyala (Iraq) is re-establishing itself. Some say in Afghanistan, but this sounds unsubstantiated.
As I half-expect Gog to arise in Iraqi through the political process, I sholuld mention that the president of Iraq (whose name is, coincidentally, Talabani) has been instrumental in blocking legislation that would provide October provincial elections:
"Iraqi parliamentarians failed on Sunday [today] to pass a law on provincial elections, putting the date of important polls in doubt and leaving unresolved a political standoff that has stoked ethnic tensions....The delay may mean the elections, originally planned for October 1, could be put off until next year."
Next year, 2009, is when I expect Gog to arise in Iraq. With both the provincial and national elections occuring in 2009, there are two avenues by which Gog can rise to some political power. I always hold the question in the back of my mind as to whether Gog will arise in league with Kurds, since Kurds have a large presence in Mosul. It should be interesting to watch the polarization that occurs as he arises. At this time, I lean toward animosity developing between Kurds and Gog.
It's late in the day and DEBKAfile has come out with a profile of the assassinated Suleiman:
"He was the president’s liaison man with the North Korean government...[He] organized the consignment of components for the plutonium reactor in northern Syria, which Israeli demolished last September...he most probably facilitated the Syrian-Iranian-North Korean connection...The late general also acted as the president’s contact man with Hizballah’s leaders...His key function was the management of Assad’s personal interaction with the Syrian chief of staff, generals and heads of military intelligence."
It's going to be hard to replace him; he had a lot of inside information on everything that was supposed to destroy Israel.
August 4
Sheikh Na'im Kassem, Hezbolah's deputy secretary-general, said on the weekend that anti-Israeli forces should not strike Israel on Israeli soil, but rather on Lebanese soil. This statement comes off rather queer, but suggests, even as the article implies, that Hezbolah is now restrained by the fact that it's a unified part of the Lebanese government. In other words, Hezbolah is hard-pressed to act only in a defensive mode, not as the aggressor, wherefore any war against Israel should only take place where Israel is the aggressor stepping foot inside Lebanon. This is the attitude that Hezbolah has agreed to in return for retaining its weapons. (Article here)
But there is more to what Kassem (or Qassem) is saying, for he also calls on anti-Israeli groups elsewhere not to invade Israel: "Kassem called on Hizbullah supporters living abroad to respect the laws of their host countries and not to fight Israel on their soil." This must be the sector in Hezbolah that Osama bin-Laden has shown anger toward. The statement suggests that Kassem and others like him are comfortable with Hezbolah's new political position, in unity with the Lebanese government, not wanting al-Qaeda etc. to rock the boat. For this reason Kassem called on other anti-Israel groups not to fight Israel from Lebanon. Somehow, I don't think Gog and his hoardes will comply with this wish.
Kassem's attitude goes goes the way of Fatah, where president Abbas and other Palestinians have become content to settle down beside Israelis as a government-run people. I believe that Abbas would not wish for Al-Qaeda, nor Gog, to invade Israel because of damage done to their own interests. It would be fine if Palestinians could defeat Israel in a war and then move in to take the entire country, but they definitely don't want al-Qaeda coming in with violent waves, repeating what they did in Iraq. Besides, Palestinians are not under any illusion that al-Qaeda, if it did take over Israel, would give Palestinians supreme power.
There must be, however, a large percentage of both Palestinian and Hezbolah members desiring foremost to destroy Israel, who don't care what an Israeli invasion does to Palestinian or Hezbolah politicians. The fact that Kassem is speaking out at this time against striking on Israeli soil is probably because Hezbolah knows that al-Qaeda is on Israel's border making plans. It also suggests that the Hezbolah leadership is not in cahoots with al-Qaeda (e.g. Fatah al-Islam) at this time. Again, disunity among Muslims is putting off the great tribulation of Israel, but Israelites need to realize that disunity cannot last forever. Israelites need to read their sacred Book to understand that God is about to invade her borders with hoardes, so that the disunity they see all around is to be understood as a time of warning from Him. It's as if He's saying, "Do you see all these enemies surrounding you? If you don't honor me, I'll open the way for them to desolate your streets."
At this time in Lebanese politics, there is a discussion taking place concerning whether or not to legislate Hezbolah's military "under the guardianship of the state." There are Hezbolah sectors refusing such a phrase be added into the legislation to be voted upon this week. In other words, don't hold your breath about Hezbolah's not being an aggressor against Israel; it wishes to act with its weapons on its own authority. (Article here)
Well Reuters confirms that Iran and the UN talked by telephone today concerning the deadline demand. No resolution. Iran has been threatening to close the entry/exit of the Persian Gulf if the UN brings further sanctions, while America says that it's navy can keep the sea routes open. Iran has recently countered that it possesses a missile system that can destroy any ship up to 300 kilometers away. Oil prices are expected to climb under this scenario so that the UN has a big decision on its hands. Will it go soft on sanctions for the sake of oil prices, or will it allow the US to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, or worse, in an effort to get this over with more quickly, come hell or high water?
Russia in the meantime came out with a comment (today or yesterday) that it needs to seek good diplomatic relations with Cuba...if you know what big, bad Russia means. I know what it means: an Armageddon scenario where neither side will back down. It's clearer than ever that Iran has Russia as it's backbone through this conflict with the UN, even though Russia is a chief member of the UN. The entry of US forces into Afghanistan, especially if they are under Obama, will aggravate this scenario all the more. Iran, and therefore Russia, has been waiting a long time to see the Americans leave Iraq, but to go home to the U.S., not into Afghanistan. Will it be intollerable for the Russia-Iran partnership to see Americans in Afghanistan for an open-ended amount of time? Either that situation or the Iranian-sanction situation promises to bring Gog into Iraq as Russia's first attempt to get a military handle on the Middle East in efforts to subdue America's handle, which handle is partially held by Europe.
The Russian Courier has an August 1 article on the Russia-Cuba talks of late:
"Russia and Cuba are to make efforts to boost bilateral cooperation in all spheres, the Russian Security Council said on Friday.Council chief Nikolai Patrushev and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin visited Cuba on July 30-31...[last week!]...
[Cuban President] Raul Castro, Patrushev and Sechin said at a meeting that their countries 'were set to make consistent efforts to restore longtime ties in all spheres of cooperation and to expand and strengthen them,' the [Russian] Security Council said in a statement."
In an effort to stave off the Armageddon scenario, can we see president Obama saying something like, "Now wait a minute all sides, I think we should clear our heads and share the Middle East together." But Gog will say, "No way, I'm having a good time taking region after region, and besides these Muslims want to make me God." Obama and Europe will then need to offer Gog something huge to stop his rampage, and that something will be a high Russian seat in the EU or UN (or else I'm not understanding Daniel 7 correctly).
It's at first intriguing that the Secretary-General of the UN has a five-year term so that the next Secretary-General (Ban Ki-moon) has a term ending on December 31, 2011 (Kofi Annan's two terms were from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2006). This means that Gog could become the Secretary-General from 2012 to 2017, which is smack during the great tribulation period that I envision in 2013-2016. The problem is not only the five-year UN seat (Revelation 13:5 gives Gog a throne for only 3.5 years), but "In practice, the Secretary-General cannot be a national of any of the permanent members of the Security Council." Russia is a permanent member. (Article here)
As I've mentioned, the Lisbon Treaty gives 2.5-year terms for the presidency of the EU. But the Lisbon Treaty has thus far failed...so that some other EU deal may increase the term to 3.5 years. It is odd, isn't it, that a term should be 2.5, rather than 2 or 3, years? Might this somehow lead to a silimarily odd 3.5-year term?
A few days ago, the Democrats began to air their disapproval of Obama's Afghan tack, fully expected because the bulk of Democrats had never shown a willingness to be in Afghanistan. The article says as much:
"The US should avoid suggesting that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq will be followed by a surge of troops in Afghanistan, according to Jim Webb, the Democratic senator for Virginia.Fresh from ruling himself out as a possible running mate for Barack Obama, Mr Webb’s comments come as an implied criticism of the Democratic party’s orthodoxy on Iraq and Afghanistan – including Mr Obama’s own stance."
It's clear that Obama is caught between the will of his voters and Brzezinki's desire to be in Afghanistan. Democrats are by-and-large ignorant of Brzezinski, wherefore instead of putting some restrictive reins on Obama, they're starting to adopt his Afghan position as though it were the Democrat thing to do. The article continues: "'We should be very careful from making it sound like we are withdrawing from Iraq because we have to build up in Afghanistan,' said Mr Webb. 'You’re starting to see people say this when they weren’t saying it before.'" We will need to keep tabs on Obama to see how his Afghan plan changes in the near future.
The question of American troops in Iraq is not being over-looked by Bush. He called the Iraqi vice-president (Adel Abdelmahdi) this past Saturday night (August 2) to stress a revival of talks to finish off some "outstanding issues." The telephone call from the very Top suggests what I supsect, that Iraq is ignoring the Bush administration at this time, especially that part of the administration over-seeing the SOFA and its aftermath "horizon" deal. The problem is, Bush is asking for all political blocks of Iraq to come to the table together, and soon. The Iraqis could easily make this more complicated than it is if what they really want to say is, "don't call us, we'll call you." Ouch. (Article here)
The saddeest thing for Bush is, Iraq -- er, Babylon -- is in bed with both Syria and Iran. Yes, all three countries are enjoying diplomatic relations, and what do we think could be the outcome when morning comes on the threesome? The fall of the current Iraqi government, of course. Bush will have some consolation when he gets to say, "I told you so," but for his legacy he will have installed a democracy in Iraq only to see it go back to enemies of the United States. Democrats can then say to Bush, "I told you so," but Democrats should be mindful that they partook in seeing to it that Bush's Iraqi plan came to nothing. The early pull-out of the troops, that is, Democrats; that's what will make the Iraqi plan come to nothing.
Will Obama save the day for Iraq? Do soldiers wear flip-flops into battle? Bush is an army boot; Obama is a flip-flop sandle. Bush is a conservative; Obama is a peace-love hippi in a suit. "Come, now, Gogi my comrade, let's make peace and love. I've got to show America that I can reach across the aisle."
"S'right with me, Obama, but I don't come cheap. See these Muslims over here? They're kissing my feet and feeding me the nectar of the gods. What will you do for me?
"See this microchip I got here in my hand? If you make your Muslim world receive it, I'll make you the biggest craze this world has ever seen.
"Not enough, Obama. I got pride. King of the world, or no deal.
"If you get out of those military boots, and put on these flip flops, I think I can get Europe to sign on.
"It's a deal, then?
"Yeah, it's a deal, and I'll even teach you how to build image.
"Waddaya mean?
"You've gotta stop talking like you're big and bad. Start looking friendly. I'll help you out. Here, put on a smile like this, and try to look cute for the ladies.
"I don't like ladies. I like war. Show me the blood!
"Don't worry, there's lots of blood, Christian blood. You'd like it. Let's start a crusade together, you in Europe, me in the United States, and your Muslims in the Middle East. We can all agree on this, right?
"Ho-ho-ho, Obama, I think you have something there. I get it. Christ-icide. Wipe them all out forever. You don't know me Obama, my middle name is Hitler. I think I'm going to like this, but why are you, a Christian, against Christians.
"I'm not against Christians, just the false Christians who call me the devil just for using this microchip.
"So we can't kill all Christians??? I knew there would be a catch. No deal! I want to be the devil if you don't, and as the devil I want to kill them all.
"Problem, Gogi. It'll ruin your image, and the world won't like you much.
"I'll change the world. I'll change the way people think. I'll teach them that Christians are a cancer. Russians are experts at this. We did it for a long time.
"I suppose we could start a program, televised and online.
"Yeah! But my name goes on it because it's my idea, and because I'm the one who's speaking out.
"We're already arresting a bunch of dead-beat Christians for trespassing. You know, the ones who won't work anymore unless we stop microchiping people. It won't be hard to make them look useless...
"You just leave it up to me, I'll make them look expendable. I'll make the world help us to harrass and even arrest them. The jailers and the courts can do the rest. More than half of the world hates Christians already anyway, so if they're leaving their jobs, it'll make my accusations sound all the better.
"I'll even make the microchip system reflect your name, if you push it on the television program.
"You telling me what to do with my program? Nobody tells me what to do. The television program's not enough. Even the Brady Bunch had to come to an end. You gotta look like you're my pet, or no deal. Europe has to respect me, or no deal. Memory of me must last forever.
"How would you like to be remembered?
"As the one strongest man, the conqueror of nations, and the leader of the largest empire that ever was. I even want to murder God.
"I can put some fine military backdrops in photographs of you that will make Stalin look like a cadet. Russians will go crazy over you. Butchoo gotta push the chip in Russia.
"As long as it has my name.
"Deal then?
"Yes we can, Obama, yes we can!!"
The Democrats in the United States then go ecstatic, not only because they have wanted to see evangelical fundamentalists go down, but because their darling President was able to solve the Middle East problem peacably. They gobble up the skincode, harrass Christians who oppose it, and give glory to the global order that Obama has churned out. The EU will be at a loss for words in the presence of Obama, except to ask, "How did the genius do it, without sanctions even?"
Read Revelation 19 and 20 for the end of the matter, but be notified: no one will believe that Revelation is Inspired unless they are shown by the Holy Spirit; to all others, the book is disguised as so much mythology.
If you're interested, you can read about a Christian-slaughtering event in Kenya at the hands of a political party that Obama supports because its leader was of the same Luo tribe as Obama's father. See here.
NEXT IRAQ UPDATE
Updates Index
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