Come into my Parlor,
Said the Spider to the Fly,
We shall talk of many Things
While I plan how Israel will Die!
November 6, 2008
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
The mold, into which Iran poured its liquid plans for the destruction of Israel, is now hardening, and dialog will only present a picture to Arabs of what they always perceive as fear, weakness, lack of resolve, or even cowardice.
The election of Obama as the leader of the world’s strongest nation has assured what I have long predicted, namely, that the likely hood of an Islamic attack again Israel, at someone point in time between 2010 and 2015, appears to be a hardening reality, rather than a guesstimate.
Beginning of dialog between Obama and Iran will fulfill the prophecy written by Paul in I Thessalonians 5:3, for the talks will eventually lead Israel and most of the world to say: finally we will have a time of “peace and safety,” but suddenly, much to the surprise of those who dwell in spiritual darkness, sudden destruction will come on Israel.
Two thirds of the Jewish population will perish, and one third will be driven into the Negev Wilderness. God’s children should not be overtaken by the deceit of believing dialog with Iran will lead to anything other than the sudden destruction of two thirds of Israel in the final holocaust of this Age of the Gentiles. A Jewish remnant of one third of the population (1.9 million) will be left “therein” (Inside Israel) in the Negev for 1260 days, where they will come to believe Jesus really was their Messiah, after which they will be delivered by Christ at his Second Advent.
I Thessalonians 5:3,4 – For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
[4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
Zechariah 13:8 – And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
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.
Jeremiah 30:7-9 – Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it. [8] For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him: [9] But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.
Zechariah 13:9 – And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.
Begin Excerpt from Alex Jones INFOWARS via World News
Israel cautions against Obama dialogue with Iran
Reuters
Thursday, Nov 6, 2008
Israel said Thursday U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s stated read iness to talk to Iran could be seen
in the Middle East as a sign of weakness in efforts to persuade Tehran to curb its nuclear program.
“We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue — in a situation where you have brought sanctions, and you then shift to dialogue — is liable to be interpreted as weakness,” Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said, asked on Israel Radio about policy change toward Tehran in an Obama administration.
Her remarks sounded the first note of dissonance with Obama by a senior member of the Israeli government since the Democrat’s sweeping victory over Republican candidate John McCain in the U.S. presidential election Tuesday.
Asked if she supported any U.S. dialogue with Iran, Livni replied: “The answer is no.”
Livni, leading the centrist Kadima party into Israel’s February 10 parliamentary election, also said “the bottom line” was that the United States, under Obama, “is also not willing to accept a nuclear Iran.”
Obama has said he would harden sanctions on Iran but has also held out the possibility of direct talks with U.S. adversaries to resolve problems, including the dispute over Tehran’ s nuclear ambition
s.
The West believes Iran’s nuclear enrichment program is aimed at building atomic weapons, an allegation the Islamic Republic denies.
Israel, believed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal, has said Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to its existence and that it was keeping all options on the table to stop it.
Begin Excerpt from Lenanon’s Daily Star via World News
America’s next president and a new approach to Iran
By Suzanne Dimaggio
Commentary
Thursday, November 06, 2008
While talking to an Iranian official in Tehran earlier this year, he reminded me of Ayatollah Khomeini’s fondness for comparing the relationship between the United States and Iran to that between a wolf and a lamb. But the official went on to add his own twist, “Nearly 30 years have passed, and we are not that lamb anymore, and maybe the US is not the same wolf it once was.” His point was that Iran no longer feels the deep inequality with the US that it did in the past, and that it may be time to try engagement.
Over the past three decades, five American presidents have struggled to figure out what to do about Iran. All five failed. As US President-elect Barack Obama and his advisers assess their foreign-policy priorities, they will encounter the immediate challenge of addressing Iran’s nuclear program and the country’s growing strategic importance in the Middle East and South Asia.
They will need quickly to face up to the reality that in order to pursue US interests in the region, including stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, the current standoff with Iran cannot continue, and that a greater degree of cooperation is unavoidable. If they do not want to repeat the failures of past administrations, they will be well advised to do what none of Obama’s predecessors have tried.
They should make a strategic decision to engage Iran – without any pre-conditions – in discussions on a broad range of issues of significance to both sides. During his candidacy, Obama said of Iran that, “For us not to be in a conversation with them doesn’t make sense.” Now, he has the opportunity to follow through.
Such an approach does not mean having Obama sit down with Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad anytime soon. A great deal of preparatory work will be required first. This can be carried out by a small team, which would hammer out the details of a mutually acceptable framework for a wide-ranging and unconditional dialogue that enables both governments to produce some modest initial successes, and gradually build the confidence and trust required to imagine solutions to larger problems. The process could include appointing a US envoy to Iran. Ultimately, direct dialogue at the highest levels should be a key objective.
This will not be easy. At the heart of the American-Iranian conflict is a deep mistrust about each nation’s readiness to tolerate the presence of
the other on the world stage. Each nation feels that it has been humiliated and demonized by the other.
What is needed is a process that rebuilds trust and communication so that the give-and-take of negotiation is perceived as serving mutual interests rather than serving up insults to national dignity or identity.
Although it is far from an exact precedent, the historic 1972 Shanghai Communique signed by China and the US, which allowed both governments to “agree to disagree” on many issues while committing themselves to dialogue at
the highest levels, offers a promising model. This far-sighted framework’s effectiveness has been well proven over time.
Dialogue with Iran will inevitably be frustrating and difficult, but it offers the only way to lay out possible grounds for constructive engagement and to devise a strategy for heading off a potentially disastrous confrontation. Dialogue focused on Iran’s nuclear program or on Iraq alone will not work. Instead, the full range of issues that are significant to US-Iran relationship must be on the table.
Such an approach will require that each side exercise broad restraint and live with the ambiguity of working with a strong adversary to manage profound differences.
Distrust will continue, signals will be confused, setbacks will be frequent, but the results could well lead over time to greater mutual understanding and a learned capacity to work on some of the most pressing problems, just as the US learned to do with the Soviet Union and China.
Direct diplomatic and strategic engagement between the US and Iran at the highest levels is a proposition yet to be tested. By pursuing this route after he takes office, Obama will force Iran to make a choice: does it want to be a state that is fully integrated into the global economy, or does it want to be an “ideology” with rogue statu
s? It is time that the world found out.
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.