Islam Advantage is Numerical, NOT Nuclear!
Islam Does NOT Want to Fight a Nuclear War,
I Teach No Nukes Will Be Used in Initial Attack,
Believing That Iran Wants Nukes for Deterrents,
Now Barry Rubin is Indicating THE SAME Principle,
Inferring the Iranians Now do Not Intend to Utilize
Any Nuclear Weapons in the Coming GREAT Conflict!
May 2, 2010
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Begin ARCHIVE SPECIAL PROPHECY 129C FROM 2003
SPECIAL PROPHECY UPDATE NUMBER 129C
Atomic War in Israel – Yes or No?
July 23, 2003
One of the main reasons I wrote three books on prophecy in the late seventies and early eighties was to establish a case advocated by teachers of the pre-World War II era. It was, simply stated, that man would not destroy the earth with his weaponry, but rather that God would destroy the earth by the use of this own power. I am certain that the horrifying changes in the topography of Israel, as well as the terrifying destruction of the antichrist’s forces at Armageddon, are by the awesome power of God, not atomic, chemical, or biological weapons of man. The lifting of the land from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem, the breaking up of Jerusalem into three sections, the splitting of the Mount of Olives, and the consuming of the flesh, tongues, and eyes of the antichrist’s men are natural phenomena unleashed by God, not by man. All the Scriptures dealing with these phenomena unleashed by God are covered in the Birth Pang Archives.
There are many advocates of a great atomic, chemical, and biological war
in Israel when the antichrist attacks 1260 days before Armageddon. It might h appen
at the time of Armageddon, but the initial attack will start what amounts to a non-nuclear, non-chemical, and non-biological war.
So why am I so confident and outspoken about this being the case?
(1) Israel has more than 200 extremely well concealed missile launching locales in the Negev between Beersheba and the Gulf of Aqabah.
(2) It has more than 300 nuclear, chemical, and biological warheads to mount on Jericho missiles.
(3) The Jericho is a very accurate missile, and can hit a target in any Islamic country from Morocco to Pakistan and from Turkey to Yemen.
(4) Israel has an excellent anti-missile defense to protect its array of silos, warheads, and missiles.
It is able to pick up an incoming enemy missile launched from Syria before it reaches it maximum altitude.
So why do I believe this array of WMD will not be unleashed by Israel when it is attacked
? Because the Israeli War Contingency Plan of Israel directs that WMD will never be launched against a foreign nation unless they are first launched against Israel.
So how do I know the Islamic countries will not launch WMD in their initial attack? All of them are well aware of what is listed in (1) through (5)! The Soviet Union, when it existed, shared Israeli intelligence information with Syria, which it collected over a long period of time from its hundreds of spy satellites it launched from pads between Moscow and the White Sea, and on the eastern side of the Aral Sea. Syria, in turn, has shared it w
ith most of the other Islamic countries around Israel. Only a leader possessed of rank insanity would ever launch WMD first against Israel, which is why I was so relieved when Saddam Hussein was taken out of the way.
Many believe the United States will quickly rush to the aid of Israel, and, as the world’s greatest power, will immediately deliver her from any kind of attack she can’t handle. There are two problems with this idea:
The United States believes Israel can defeat any Islamic attack on its own without any help from us. After all, Israel has easily done so in three previous wars.
This will be a lightning Jihad, and better coordinated than any of the previous wars, and this time Israel will have a Palestinian state attacking it from within, while the other Islamic nations come in from outside its borders.
It will probably last less than a couple of weeks, and Jerusalem is likely to fall within two weeks. By the time we decide they must have our help it will be too late because they will have occupied most of the land from Dan to Beersheba.
By this time it would take months, as it did in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Freedom Iraq, to get sufficient American troops on the ground to do any good.
What was the character of the past three wars
? They were all very short in duration, and they all ended abruptly in a truce. That will be the case in this war. The United States knows that the Negev is the place where Israel will flee. When we believe they are safely in the Negev, we will be more than willing to accept a truce to give us time to think about what to do, and Israel will remain trapped in the Negev for some three and one-half years.
END 2003 ARCHIVE UPDATE
Begin Excerpt from THE JERUSALEM POST
The Region: Onwards, Iran marches
By BARRY RUBIN
26/04/2010 09:20
It has been 15 months since Barack Obama called for ‘good-faith negotiations’ with the Islamic Republic on its nuclear program. Where are we now? Still talking about it
Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, according to a new US Department of Defense report. As I keep trying to explain, this isn’t all about Israel, because Iran will be able to hit any country in the region.
Yet the more likely danger is that the Iranian regime will use nuclear weapons “defensively.” In other words, it will intimidate, subvert and bring over to its side millions of people, changing the power balance in the region. And if anyone in the Arabic-speaking world wants to oppose it or do anything about it, Teheran will just use the possession of nuclear weapons to scare them into submission.
But won’t a US promise of protection reassure everyone? Take a look at current US policy and try to answer yes without laughing. And there’s another problem. Even if you know that the US will launch an attack in response, your country will still be flattened. Better to give in or even jump on the revolutionary Islamist bandwagon, many will conclude.
Meanwhile, we can still read headlines like this one: “US open to Iran nuclear fuel deal despite doubts.”
Oh, right! Let’s spend a few months going back to the nuclear fuel swap deal which Iran raised last September to sabotage the sanctions train so successfully. No problem. What could possibly be a reason to hurry in putting pressure on Iran
?
That’s why the Pentagon report is so important.
It warns: “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”
Please note what Iran’s deterrent strategy means in practice. Iran’s radical Islamist regime will be able to foment terrorism and revolution against Arab governments, try to take over Lebanon, promote Hamas in fighting Israel and overturning the Palestinian Authority, and target American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other things.
But if the US or others try to do something about it, Iran will use its possession of nuclear weapons to deter them. At the same time, it will use possession of nuclear weapons to foment appeasement among regional and Western states while simultaneously persuading millions of Muslims that revolutionary Islamism is invincible and they should join a movement headed for inevitable victory.
IN ADDITION, the report spoke of how Iran backs revolutionary Islamists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon (Hizbullah, to which Iran gives $200 million a year) and among the Palestinians (Hamas). What does the Pentagon report mean when it says that Iran views Hizbullah “as an essential partner for advancing its regional policy objectives”?
Teheran is conducting a campaign to seize hegemony in the Middle East and destroy US influence there. How are you going to engage and negotiate away that problem
? While Iran may never give nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, it is not an encouraging precedent to note that it gives them all manner of non-nuclear weapons.
In the report’s words, “Iran, through its long-standing relationship with Lebanese [Hizbullah], maintains a capability to strike Israel directly and threatens Israeli and US interests worldwide.”
Instead of a decisive US response, here’s how a veteran Defense Department official described what’s been happening in an interview with The Times of London, April 20: “Fifteen months into his administration, Iran has faced no significant consequences for continuing with its uranium-enrichment program, despite two deadlines set by [President Barack] Obama, which came and went without anything happening. Now it may be too late to stop Iran from becoming nuclear-capable.
“First, there was talk of crippling sanctions, then they [spoke of biting sanctions] and now we don’t know how tough they’re going to be. It depends on the level of support given by Russia and China – but neither is expected to back measures against Iran’s energy sector.”
The Washington Post comprehends the dangers: “A year-long attempt at engagement failed; now the push for sanctions is proceeding at a snail’s pace.
Though adm inistration officials say they have made progress
in overcoming resistance from Russia and China, it appears a new UN sanctions resolution might require months more of dickering. Even then it might only be a shell intended to pave the way for ad hoc actions by the United States and European Union, which would require further diplomacy.”
And what would sanctions accomplish? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Financial Times last week that “maybe… [they] would lead to the kind of good-faith negotiations that President Obama called for 15 months ago.”
Yet the notion that the hard-line Iranian clique now in power would ever negotiate in good faith is far-fetched. It’s almost May 2010, the Obama administration is almost 40 percent through its term in office and Clinton is still talking about “good-faith negotiations.”
If the US wants to prevent a future war with Iran, the best way to do so is through tough sanctions now – not only to discourage Iran’s nuclear program but to weaken its overall military might and confidence – and a comprehensive strategic campaign of its own to counter the “regional policy objectives” of Iran and Syria.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs and Turkish Studies. His personal blog can be read at www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
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.