Obama Laid the Asphalt of the Highway to the Final Middle East War
Obama has been the Perfect President to Fulfill End Time Prophecies
[“Obama’s even-handedness in the face of a US enemy’s Aggression
Against A US Ally IS PLACING Israel And Lebanon On A Straight Path
to a new war.”] HIS Appeasement IS Considered Cowardly By Islam
Iran May well have a Small Deterrent Nuclear Missile Arsenal in 2013
IF Israel Does NOT Knock Out Or Deter The Iranian Nuclear Program
IT IS LIKELY A Conventional War Will Begin Between 2013 And 2015
July 17, 2011
http//www.tribulationperiod.com/
Begin Archive 2003 Special Prophecy Update 116C
SPECIAL PROPHECY UPDATE NUMBER 116C
April 22, 2003
An Oft Asked Question!
When Israel is Attacked, What Will the U.S. Do?
I have received this question many times during the last 29 years, and each time I have answered it individually.
It requires a great deal of my time to answer the countless questions I receive weekly by e-mail.
I have answered this question in several of my Prophecy Updates, but it takes much longer to go back and find them for forwarding to the questioner, than to answer it directly. Since the question has increased in frequency over the last couple of months, I have decided to answer the question in a single Update, namely this one, and then to stick 116C on a board over my computer, so that I can simply forwarded it to all future queries on the subject. I first answered this question in Special Prophecy Update Number 71A, dated June 8, 2002, which may be found in our Prophecy Archives. In Update 116C I will attempt to give a fuller discourse and explanation, but you might be well advised to go back and read 71A.
Point 1 – Both Israel and the United States will be taken completely by surprise through a well-coordinated, lightning, blitzkrieg like, Jihad by 10 Arab nations. This initial attack begins the last 1260 days before the battle of Armageddon. The land Biblically designated as Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, will be taken in a matter of days, except for the coastal strip from Tel Aviv, where 70 percent of the Israeli population resides. The U.S. maintains an attack carrier group in the Mediterranean between Turkey and Egypt 365 days a year. But the suddenness of this attack is going to be accompanied by a brief period of indecision at the command level and, during that period of time, the Arabs and Israeli forces will be so intertwined in actual combat formations that air strikes would likely take out as many Israeli Defense Forces as Islamic military units.
The loss of lives by friendly fire would be enormous. Remember, this is going to be an Israeli-Arab conflict. The European Union, Russia, and China do not become involved in the initial attack. They all join in the final battle of Armageddon some three and one-half years later. This is the attack of Revelation 12:6.
Revelation 12:6 – And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
Point 2 – It took the U.S. eight months to get all its forces in place before they felt confident in launching Operation Desert Storm, and five months to get them in place for Operation Iraqi Freedom. We cannot stop such a well-coordinated Jihad on short notice. We know that the Israelis have the most secure war contingency evacuation area in the world. We watched them turn the Negev wilderness into the best camouflaged, and more heavily fortified piece of real estate on this planet, from our many spy satellites launched out of southern California. The awareness that they have a place of safety into which to evacuate, and that the Islamic forces would not dare penetrate south of Beersheba, will cause us to hold off any large scale attack against their enemies, and Israel will remain in the Negev for 1260 days.
Point 3 – At the same time we watched Israel turn the Negev, which is more than one-third of the total land mass of Israel, into a mighty zone of unbelievable military power, the Soviets were doing the same with their spy satellites launched out of their sites south of the White Sea and east of the Aral Sea. By electronic intercept we know they transmitted all this information to the Syrians, who in turn shared it with the more militant Arab nations. There will not be, I repeat, there will not be a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack against Israel. The Arab nations know that Israel has more than 200 Jericho missile silos in the Negev, and more than 300 nuclear, chemical, and biological warheads. They are capable of wiping out most of the Arab population in the Middle East, and all the Islamic leaders are well aware of it. But they also know that Israel will never launch a weapon of mass destruction against them unless they first launch against it. That is the policy of the political and military leaders of Israel, and as a government they will not violate it, even if driven into the Negev. This next war will be a war similar to the war we witnessed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In all three previous wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973, they ended abruptly in a truce. This one will end the same, and the truce will hold for 1260 days. The U.S. will agree because Israel will be safe in the Negev. Israel will agree because they will be stunned, and will want to regroup for future actions. The Arabs will agree because they will have what they want, the land from Dan to Beersheba – They have no real interest in the Negev. In fact, as a humanitarian gesture to gain world favor, they will allow Israeli, U.S., British, Canadian, and other western nations to use their transport aircraft to carry the 70 percent of the Israeli population, boxed in the coastal strip from Tel Aviv to Haifa, to a place of safety in the Negev.
Revelation 12:14 – And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent (time = 1 year, times = 2 years, half a time = ½ year)
The western nations will be allowed to airlift supplies to Israel in the Negev as an effort to show what a great humanitarian the Arab leader is, in order to influence world opinion.
The word “NATIONS” in verse 5 is the precedent to the word “THEY” in verse 6, and refers to the nations friendly to the woman Israel.
Revelation 12:5,6 – And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all NATIONS with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. [6] And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that THEY should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
Point 4 – I don’t believe the U.S. is going to desire to be involved in another expensive Middle East war when Israel is attacked. I believe our economy will pick up as the dust of the current conflict settles, but at some point in time before the conflict, we are headed for a crash. This will cause us to accept the truce offered by the Arabs. In fact, at the time of the attack, all I expect out of us and the European Union is a loud diplomatic protest, and I strongly suspect it is the one found in Ezekiel 38:13. This diplomatic protest is made in response to the antichrist’s initial attack.
Ezekiel 38:13 – Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?
Historically, the merchants of Tarshish, established a colony named Tartessus in southern Spain, placed trading sites along the coastlines of Europe around the Mediterranean Sea, and eventually had trading posts along the coastlines of most of northern Europe. It is possible that the “merchants of Tarshish” represent Europe. If so, then all of the western world, in particular the United States, may represent “all the young lions thereof,” because we are the offspring, and melting post, of Europe. All of the reference sources I have consulted make Sheba and Dedan the occupants of the land we identify as the Saudi Arabian peninsula today. I have detailed in numerous previous Birth Pangs and Prophecy Updates why I believe Saudi Arabia, the numerous small countries around it, Jordan, and Egypt will be kept in the dark about this Jihad. All that the United States, the Western World, Europe, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will do is issue a “naughty, naughty” diplomatic protest at the time of the attack. You will find all of this in 71A. As to why Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia will not be among the 10 Arab nation attacking Israel, please consult Prophecy Updates 71 and 72.
Point 5 – I correlate the opening of the sixth sea in revelation, which lists the first earthquake in the book of Revelation, as occurring simultaneous with the antichrist’s attack, and the beginning of the last 1260 days prior to the battle of Armageddon. I believe this correlates with the time that Satan is cast our of heaven, and a large part of the antichrist’s army is swallowed up north of Beersheba in pursuit of Israel fleeing into the Negev. The sudden increase in worldwide earthquake activity will cause such confusion that the antichrist will be able to drive Israel into the Negev with a minimum of outside interference. Please take a look at Birth Pang Number 42, March 29, 2002 in our Birth Pang Archives.
Revelation 6:12 – And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
Revelation 12:15,16 – And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. [16] And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
Another question that I have been asked over and over again is this: What are you doing to get ready for this
? Are you storing up food and survival supplies? That’s a lot easier to answer!
Matthew 6:31-34 – Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? [32] (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. [33] But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. [34] Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Mark 6:50-52 – For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.
[51] And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. [52] For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.
If he could feed about five thousand men with five loaves and two fish, surely he can provide for his churches in the tribulation. I say with Esther, “and if I perish, I perish.” There’s something a lot better on the other side of perishing in Christ’s service.
Begin Excerpt from the Jerusalem Post
The path to the next Lebanon War
By CAROLINE B. GLICK
07/11/2011 22:24
The three lessons of the Second Lebanon War taught us to be wary
of appeasers both here and in the US.
Five years ago this week, Iran’s Lebanese proxy opened war with Israel. The war lasted 34 days, during which Hezbollah launched more than 4,000 missiles against Israel. Now five years later, under US President Barack Obama, America is pushing a policy that drastically escalates the chance that a new war between Israel and Iran’s Lebanese army will break out again in the near future.
Back in 2006, Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s aggression was swift but incompetent. While Israel scored some blows against the Iranian proxy force, the war ended with Hezbollah still shooting.
Israel failed to defeat the terror army. And because Hezbollah survived, it won the war.
This truth is exposed in all its ugliness by the political and military realities five years on. Today, Hezbollah is not simply in charge of Israel’s former security zone in South Lebanon.
It is in charge of all of Lebanon. The Hezbollah-controlled government controls all aspects of the Lebanese state that it wishes. These include the military, the telecommunications networks, and the international borders, airports and sea ports, among other things.
Today, Hezbollah has not merely refilled its depleted missile arsenals. It has tripled the size of its missile arsenals. In 2006, IAF strikes in the first 24 hours of the war knocked out all of Hezbollah’s long-range missiles. Today, not only have those stocks been replenished, Hezbollah’s arsenal includes missiles with ranges covering all of Israel, with larger payloads and many with guidance systems.
The lessons of the war are easy to see. And the Israeli public, which learned them five years ago, still hasn’t forgotten them.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, the war taught us three lessons. The first lesson is that you can’t convince terrorists to lay down their arms simply by walking away. Israel withdrew from its security zone in southern Lebanon in 2000. The withdrawal was a precursor to its withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. In 2006, Israel was attacked from both territories.
In the lead-up to both withdrawals, Israel’s national leadership told the public that the only reason terrorists from these territories were attacking us was that we were there. If we went away, they would stop hating us and we would be safe. We were the problem, not them, so we could solve the problem by giving them what they wanted.
Although then-prime minister Ehud Olmert and then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni continued to push appeasement through their insistence that Israel surrender Judea and Samaria, the war of 2006 showed the public the folly of their plans. And at first opportunity, the public elected the Likud and other right-wing parties – which oppose appeasement – to form the current government.
The second lesson the public learned is that when a nation goes to war against an enemy that seeks its destruction, it must fight to win. You cannot fight a half-war against an implacable foe. And if you fail to win, you lose.
This is not how Israel fought the war of 2006. Partially due to pressure from then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and partially due to his own strategic incomprehension, Olmert believed it was possible to fight to a draw without losing.
In the event, there was only one way for Israel to defeat Hezbollah – by regaining control over southern Lebanon.
Any other conclusion to the war would leave Hezbollah standing. And simply by surviving intact, as Lebanese Druse leader Walid Jumblatt warned at the time, the road would be paved for Hezbollah to take over Lebanon.
But Olmert – and Livni – wouldn’t even consider retaking control of South Lebanon. The option was discarded contemptuously as a delusional recipe for forcing Israel back into the “Lebanese quagmire.” The fact that the “Lebanese quagmire” came to Israel after we left Lebanon, and that it will only end when Israel defeats Hezbollah, was completely ignored.
Olmert’s and Livni’s reason for rejecting the one strategy that would have brought Israel victory is explained by the third lesson of the war. That lesson is that once a leader is ideologically committed to a policy of appeasement, he is unable to allow rational considerations to permeate his thinking.
THE OLMERT government was elected in 2006 on the basis of its plan to repeat the Lebanon and Gaza withdrawals
in Judea and Samaria. During the war, Olmert told his supporters that victory in Lebanon would enable him to carry out his planned withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.
And this was true.
But because of the circular logic of appeasement, there was no way that Olmert could fight to win.
If Israel had retaken control of southern Lebanon, Olmert would have had a chance of convincing the public that unilateral withdrawal was a viable strategy. He would have been able to argue that just as the IDF retook control of southern Lebanon, so it would retake control of Judea and Samaria if the Palestinians used the vacated lands to attack the rest of the country.
But because he was committed to appeasement, Olmert could not fight to win in Lebanon.
The appeasement agenda is predicated on the disavowal of the notion of military victory and the embrace of the mantra, “There is no military solution.”
If victory is an option, then surrender along the lines that Olmert preached in Judea and Samaria is also an option.
That is, surrender is an option, not an imperative, as he claimed. And if victory is an option, then clearly it has much more to recommend it than defeat.
But with their appeasement agenda reigning supreme – as appeasement agendas always do – instead of fighting to win, Olmert and Livni sued for a cease-fire. That is, they sought a diplomatic solution to a military problem. And since by not losing, Hezbollah won the military contest, it also came out the victor in UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which set the conditions of the cease-fire.
Resolution 1701 was a massive victory for Hezbollah. The resolution placed the international terror group run by Iran on equal footing with Israel, a sovereign state. The security arrangements in the resolution were an invitation for Hezbollah to rearm. It was pure fantasy to believe that the Hezbollah-dominated Lebanese government would block Hezbollah’s rearmament. And it was utter madness to think that European military forces would lift a finger to prevent Hezbollah from reasserting full control over the border with Israel.
But again, if you accept the circular logic of appeasement – that always puts the burden of proof on the non-aggressor – then you will never learn these, or any other lessons. And as a consequence, appeasers will always and forever foment wars in the name of peace.
THE ISRAELI public learned these lessons and elected a government that understands them. Perhaps if the American people had elected Senator John McCain to succeed George W. Bush in 2008, the US government would have learned these lessons as well. And then maybe together the Israeli and the US governments might have set about fixing at least some of the damage the war caused them both.
But in their wisdom, the American people elected Barack Obama to succeed Bush in the White House. And Obama has learned none of the lessons of the last war. Consequently Obama’s current policies are increasing the likelihood of another war between Israel and Iran’s Lebanese proxy in the near future.
Far from recognizing the nature of Hezbollah, the Obama administration has tried to wish away its implacability. Last May, Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan spoke of the administration’s plan to cultivate “moderate elements” in the Iranian-run jihadist organization.
The Obama administration’s notion that the US can adopt a nuanced approach to the terror group is put paid by Hezbollah’s takeover of the Lebanese government, its growing capabilities in the Western hemisphere, its continued devotion to the cause of Israel’s destruction, its participation in the killing of Syrian anti-regime protesters, and Iran’s clear control over all aspects of the organization’s operations. And yet, by all accounts, the administration refuses to acknowledge that there can be no nuance toward Hezbollah.
The dangers of Obama’s rejection of these basic truths were exposed this week. Sunday the government approved the demarcation of Israel’s territorial waters along the border with Lebanon.
The borders will be submitted to the UN.
Israel’s move was forced on it by the Obama administration.
The dispute over the sea border arose after Israel discovered massive quantities of natural gas in its territorial waters in 2009.
Acting on orders from Hezbollah and Iran, the Lebanese government immediately claimed erroneously that the waters belonged to Lebanon.
Last August, Lebanon submitted its claim to the UN.
Israel negotiated its maritime borders with Cyprus in 2007. The same year, Cyprus also negotiated its maritime borders with Lebanon. At the time, Lebanon did not claim the areas in which Israel has discovered natural gas deposits or the areas abutting those areas, which are suspected of similarly containing large natural gas deposits. Lebanon’s current claim includes Israel’s territorial waters abutting the gas fields it discovered in 2009.
In staking this false claim, as it did with the Shaba Farms on Mount Dov in the Golan Heights in 2000, Lebanon is setting up a casus belli against Israel.
Under the circumstances, the only rational policy that the US can possibly adopt is to loudly and strenuously back Israel’s claim and reject all Lebanese contentions to the contrary.
Only by completely rejecting Lebanon’s claim can the US deny Hezbollah and Iran the ability to use Israel’s gas finds in its territorial waters as a justification for war.
Rather than do this, guided by its appeasement ideology, the Obama administration has refused to take sides. It urged Israel to submit its counter-claim to the UN – where it can bully Israel into accepting arbitration of the dispute by the inherently anti-Israel UN.
More generally, by refusing to take sides, the US is in fact siding with its enemy Iran and Iran’s proxy Hezbollah against its ally Israel.
According to media reports, the Obama administration claims that by acting in this manner, it is seeking to prevent a flare-up of hostilities. That is, the administration believes that if it shows Hezbollah its good will by treating Israel’s honest claim as equal to Lebanon/Hezbollah/Iran’s false claim, it will appease the latter into not waging a war of aggression against the former.
But again, what the last war taught us is that this sort of behavior is what emboldens aggressors to attack. Obama’s even-handedness in the face of a US enemy’s aggression against a US ally is placing Israel and Lebanon on a straight path to a new war.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.