"Axis of Evil" Members Plucked Up by the Roots? Page I of II
To Honor Jesus Christ, Glorify
God, Encourage Believers, & Warn All
information is offered with the hope that YOU can come to KNOW the Lord
The end time "beast" or political structure from the Book of Revelation says that the PRIMARY characteristic is that of a "leopard."
Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard , and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority .
What does this Leopard Represent? Turn to the Book of Daniel for the answer. Here we find Daniel's vision describing the successive "World" empires.
THE FIRST KINGDOM WAS BABYLON
Daniel 7:4 The first was like a lion , and had eagle's wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it .
THE SECOND KINGDOM WAS MEDIO-PERSIA
Daniel 7:5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
THE THIRD KINGDOM IS THAT OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT (GRECIAN)
Daniel 7:6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it .
This " leopard " was divided into 4 "heads." The kingdom of Alexander the Great was divided into Thrace, Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt . The final kingdom of Revelation 13:2 has the body of a " leopard ". Therefore, the primary attribute of the final kingdom is that of Alexander the Great's. See Assyria for more information . This is not the EU (European Union).
Continuing with Daniel's vision, notice that the final kingdom has TEN HORNS.
THE FINAL KINGDOM FOR THE ENDTIME
Daniel 7:7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns .
Notice that a " little horn " arises " before whom THREE of the FIRST HORNS are PLUCKED UP BY THE ROOTS ."
Daniel 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn , before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots : and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things .
Continuing with Daniel's endtime beast, we see that " another...shall SUBDUE THREE KINGS ."
Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings .
We have already shown that the body of this beast is a " leopard ". What territory predominates from Alexander the Great's (leopard) kingdom? - Answer: Assyria.
Where was this kingdom of Assyria? Follow these links to read about the Modern territories of Jordan , Syria , Iraq , and Iran (all 4 part of ancient Assyria). Three of these are on the "Axis of Evil" list (Syria, Iraq, Iran).. Other potential possibilities for the "three horns" are Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. [ When this was originally written, it was BEFORE the Iraq war. Now that Iraq has been invaded, this takes Iraq off the candidates list. ] However, see 04-13-2002 and 11-16-2003 below.
Now, where is this leading us?
Therefore, if the "leopard" body (Assyria) is the primary part of the kingdom, would not many of its "horns" be found there too, including the "other...diverse from the first"? The "other" is the antichrist. These "three kings" he will "subdue."
03-24-2003 Revelation 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow ; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering , and to conquer
This verse describes the VERY FIRST ACTION of the tribulation period. Now that the doctrine of a " PREEMPTIVE INVASION " has been firmly established with the invasion to depose Saddam Hussein, look for more " PREEMPTIVE INVASIONS ." Notice that the action of the man on the white horse (the antichrist) has a "BOW" (a military at his disposal). Further, notice the PRECISE WORDING of the phrase CONQUERING and TO CONQUER . He is going forth and CONQUERING some nation/people, but, he also has a PURPOSE - TO CONQUER . In other words, he has a PROGRAM "to conquer." If he was just conquering a nation, the verse would have said this only. It did not; it said " TO CONQUER " as well. Read the outline of Revelation
This "program" is terrorist elimination and enforced compliance with the new "ethical standard" imposed on nations in the region.
The whole point of writing this particular page is to show that the PROGRAM " to conquer " already exists . It simply awaits enforcement.
The rest of this page establishes that there are SEVERAL CANDIDATES for being "plucked up " (a REGIME CHANGE, if you will) ALREADY being DISCUSSED OPENLY.
From Time Magazine of March 21, 2003-
The unanswered question of the Iraq story is whether ideas behind it will one day be used in other places, too. - p183
You do not have to look far for an answer either-
From the website of today's date- http://theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/439iinbi.asp
Wahhabism in the War
The murderer from the 101st Airborne and a suicide bomber in northern Iraq both appear to have been influenced by Saudi extremism.
by Stephen Schwartz
03/27/2003 10:50:00 AM
The opening paragraph reads-
ON THE IRAQI WAR FRONT, Sunday, March 23 was a blood-red day for the terrorist Wahhabi movement, funded by "our Saudi allies " and aiming at control over world Islam.
Also, from Fox Television News of 03-30-2003, it is being reported that the suicide driver of the white civilian truck who hit 15 Marines at a "store" in Kuwait was an "Egyptian contractor."
Which countries are ACTUALLY the "three kings" is NOT the point. The point is that "plucking up " and " to conquer " is an ALREADY established doctrine in the Middle east. By the time the "subduing of three kings" takes place, there is a good possibility that a nuclear war will have already taken place . Therefore, the candidates for this will have changed from the present landscape.
From President Bush's speech aboard the USS Lincoln on May 1, 2003, we read-
"In the battle of Iraq , the United States and our allies have prevailed."
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror ,"
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001 , and still goes on ,"
"Our mission continues . Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed . The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we ."
"In the battle of Afghanistan , we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained,"
It is obvious from President Bush's words that we are in a WAR and that Iraq and Afghanistan are just the beginning. There is a definite threatening tone to what he is saying. How wide spread are his intentions? If they are anything like Zbigniew Brezinski's point of view or if the world believes that the United States would conduct a "strategically imperative" policy on this scale, the world is in a precarious situation. Read about the "strategic imperative " of the United States - something guaranteed to threaten many countries in the Middle East and eastward . Ultimately, this leads us to Armageddon . That the United States official policy is one of continual war is made clear on the Official Naval War College website .
I do not believe that it is Christian to advocate a war on Islam as many conservative "Christians" are advocating (Jesus said His servants are not of this world and would not fight). Many people associated with western Christianity are being used when they are lead to say things that imply that the Christian west should wage war against Islam. There is no Biblical basis for advocating such a thing and it is contrary to the Bible. [The reason I put this paragraph here is so that no one can ever say that this website advocates a religious war. I did this because I want to compliment the president on a job well done, but, at the same time I do not want to be misinterpreted. Dubya, we salute your spirit and we salute your concern for the troops. We could tell that you were moved to tears when you spoke.]
Having said this, I believe that God "sets up kings" and he "removes kings."
"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; He turneth it whithersoever He will ." Proverbs 21:1
Dubya is just such a "King."
It is not conceivable that (even if the present King of Jordan becomes the new ruler over "Iraq"), that Jordan itself could become one of the "three horns" plucked up. In this scenario, the former regent of Jordan could become the new leader in Iraq. In this scenario, remember, that the antichrist spares the western Jordanians, "palestinians ."
Something to contemplate-
In Iraq there are three major factions- Kurds in the north, Sunni Muslims in the central, and Shiite Muslims in the south. Is there any way that Iraq would become divided into 3 separate entities? Maybe. If so, you would have "three horns" right there in Iraq. Some are calling for just such a split. Only time will tell. We know the Bible is true. It is OUR understanding that is the weak point. As the events unfold, the prophecy will be fulfilled. In this scenario, however, it would become necessary for the antichrist to be sponsored by non-United States parties (assuming the continued US presence in Iraq and no voluntary incorporation of Iraq into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). To date, all the scenarios we considered have been with the United States effectively enabling the antichrist's rise through such a voluntary "redrawing of the Mideastern map." The way the scenario unfolds in Iraq depends upon the relationship between the United States, the EU, the UN, Russia, and arguably the Vatican [ and its desire to control Jerusalem, which it has tried? to do through a surrogate PLO ]. At present it does not appear that the United States is going to be giving up what it has earned through a great sacrifice. In fact, Wolfowitz was quoted as saying that if Russia and EU members want to be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq, they can forgive the multi-billion $ debt owed them by Iraq. This is funny because it is not exactly what they had in mind, which is a presence in Iraq. The United States leaders do not want Russia (and perhaps France as well) to be in Iraq wearing UN insignia.
[The scenario which has continued US presence in Iraq is certainly perceived as a threat by Russia, China, other Islamic states, and apparently EU members as well. Unfolding of this situation will prove interesting, no doubt. The EU members apparently are being used as leverage to prohibit a US hegemony in Iraq and the middle east in general. US hegemony in Iraq is not desired by the Vatican either. For years, the Vatican and Russia have tried to keep US influence in the region to a minimum. The fact that the Vatican joined forces with Russia in the 60s is described here . Interestingly, during Vatican II, the communists were invited to Rome (and in May 1964 the PLO was founded ). Some dates for the 4 sessions of Vatican II [ from which emerged the Ostpolitik alliance with Russia ] are: Oct. 11, 1962--Dec 8, 1965 (4 different sessions under 2 different popes).]
From the Wolfowitz, General Peter Pace briefing to Arab media on April 12, 2003 we read of official US policy-
It is important to the United States, and I think to every country in the region, that Iraq remain a unified country .
-General Peter Pace, USMC, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Naval Academy class of 1967
From the website-
Three Administrative Regions For US Rule In Post-Saddam Iraq
The US plans to divide Iraq into three regions (central, north and south) for administrative purposes after regime change in Baghdad, with civil administrators appointed to run each one. The scheme is part of a wider structure devised by the Department of Defense for imposing US military and civil rule on Iraq.
The US military structure. Head of US Central Command (CENTCOM) is Gen Tommy Franks. CENTCOM second in command is Gen John Abizaid, with Gen Donald MacKiernan as Commander of Forces in Iraq. Working alongside CENTCOM will be the 62-member Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), headed by Michael Marx, based in Kuwait, with representations in Turkey, Jordan and Qatar (MEES, 2 March). Working with DART will be humanitarian agencies and NGOs.
The civil structure. Overall responsibility for this sector is in the hands of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs (ORHA), set up by the Pentagon in January and headed by retired US army Lt Gen Jay M Garner, with retired Gen Ronald Adams as his assistant. Below ORHA come four coordinators – for humanitarian affairs (George Ward – liaising with DART), civil administration (Michael Mobbs), reconstruction (Lewis Lucke), and budget and logistics. Some 200 people will be reporting to Gen Garner. Energy and power will come under the authority of the reconstruction coordinator.
Reporting to the coordinator for civil administration will be the civil administrators for the three regions : central (former US Ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodin); north (a retired US army general); and south (retired general).
Iraqi bodies. A Consultative Council, comprising 20-25 Iraqis, which will establish two commissions – one to draw up a constitution, the other to work on legal reform.
Look at the 04-13-2003 section above where it is said " something to contemplate ." Is there any way that Iraq would become divided into 3 separate entities? Maybe. Well, apparently this has been a distinct possibility all along (unknown to me).
Hear me out on this-
What if the rapture were to occur BEFORE Iraq becomes unified (as General Pace stated) - while Iraq remains divided into THREE REGIONS? You can fill in the rest of the story yourself. In your story, WHO is the person who DOES the unifying? This would be "plucking up by the roots" for sure. To add to the scenario, consider the 10 kings, who come LATER in the prophecy ("one hour with the beast"). Count these- 1)Jordan, 2)Syria, 3)Saudi Arabia, 4)Lebanon, 5)Egypt, 6)Iran, 7)Kuwait, (8,9,10)Iraq's 3 regions. Or, substitute Turkey for, say Saudi Arabia. (Even after Persia is hit in Eze 38-39, it will stilll be a country).
If you go to the website above, there is a lot more discussion. Of course, emphasis on the quote above is not in the original.
from the website- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/22/eveningnews/main550605.shtml
We read from a Dan Rather interview of King Abdullah of Jordan-
"If we don't keep the (territorial) integrity of Iraq we could have some major problems throughout the whole of the Middle East."
King Abdullah, on the need to stop Iraq from splintering into several nations
For King Abdullah, this moment in history is pivotal, not only for the future of Iraq but for the whole Middle East.
King Abdullah: If Iraq continues to disintegrate, let's say, god forsake and there's no pressure on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the skeptics in the Arab world will say, "See, the Americans were there for the oil, they don't care about the Middle East," if you don't solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
I'm going to pay the price as well as my people, and so will you. You will continue to be dragged in, too. You've been covering the region for how many years? And you will continue to be back here asking these questions unless we solve it once and for all .
Based on these comments by the King, should Iraq split into 3 parts, there would be tremendous pressure to unite the country and thus provide an incentive to "pluck up" the 3 parts and bring them under subjugation into a larger entity.
From the BBC on Colin Powell's visit to Brussels-
Mr Powell was speaking at Nato headquarters in Brussels, after a day of talks with European foreign ministers. He said the US-led coalition would work in partnership with other organisations but would reserve for itself the "leading role in determining the way forward" . He added that Nato member states had been receptive to the idea of Nato peacekeeping in Iraq, but stressed that no definite proposals had yet been tabled.
Nato Secretary General George Robertson and Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, both spoke earlier of an emerging transatlantic consensus on the future of Iraq .
The aim of Mr Powell's visit - his first since the start of the US-led invasion of Iraq - was to rebuild relations damaged by bitter disagreements in the run-up to the war. European ministers said they would be pressing Mr Powell to agree to a central role for the UN. Mr Powell said Washington hoped UN Secretary General Kofi Annan would appoint a co-ordinator to supervise "the flow of humanitarian aid coming from UN organisations". But he stressed that the potential role of the UN had yet to be decided, and that resolutions had yet to be drafted. The US administration is reported to be divided on the issue . Correspondents say France, Germany and Russia are still bitterly opposed to anything that would legitimise the war. But there have been signs of a more conciliatory approach from all three governments. The German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, told parliament in Berlin on Thursday that his country hoped the war would end quickly with the fall of what he called the current Iraqi dictatorship. However, he stressed that Germany remained opposed to the war, and said Iraqi resources must remain under the control of its people.
In President Bush's speech of January 29, 2002 he described several "AXIS of EVIL" nations-
They included IRAQ and IRAN .
For some time the US has had an anti-terrorism policy. In fact, the US has an expanionist policy in the Mideast. The expansionist policy is in the "leopard" area.
Recently, SYRIA has been added to the list, bringing the total of "leopard" nations on the "Axis of Evil" list to THREE(3).
Is this a mere coincidence or is the Lord God Almighty about to come for his church?
From Larouchepub.com we find that senior administration officials are not apparently worried about the
"allegedly classified version of the administration's "Nuclear Posture Review" (NPR). Notably, what was leaked, was the claim that the United States had targetted five non-nuclear powers for possible nuclear strikes in case of conflict. These include not only Bush's "axis of evil" countries: Iraq , Iran and North Korea,- but also Libya and Syria ."
From the US State Department website we find that Syria is now on the "axis of evil" list.
Beyond the Axis of Evil - Syria
From the BBC we find that the US has added SYRIA to the list.
US expands Axis of evil to include Syria
Fom this site we read-
"In a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil", US Under Secretary of State, John Bolton said that the three nations could be grouped with other so-called "rogue states" - Iraq , Iran and North Korea - in actively attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. He also warned that the US would take action. "America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror ," he said,
Could we be seeing prophecy unfolding? Time will tell, but, I would be looking up if I were you. The "bow" is no longer a viable scenario, but, the "alternative" is still viable.
For possible scenarios, read the " bow " and an alternative . The ultimate objective for "conquering" is this .
Since the "ten kings" have power "one hour" with the beast and this is apparently well into the tribulation of seven years, then, the act of "subdu[ing] three kings" can not take place before the tribulation starts.
Concerning the candidacy of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt as the "the three horns" to be "plucked up", the following quote is submitted from http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020907/2002090719.html
"According to one source, the research reaches the result that the military attack against Iraq is "a tactical objective," Saudi Arabia is "the strategic objective" and Egypt is "the big prize." This means, the correspondent says, that this group inside the American administration sees that changing the regime in the three said countries is a strategic objective and converting them into liberal countries inclined to the West would limit their ability to threaten the US through its interests in the Arab states.
He recently heard from the Americans why it is good for them to start, in particular dealing the question of Iraq. According to the views of the Americans there are potentials in Iraq of qualitative human force that would contribute to economic development and democracy, while the Iraqi oil can give a solution to the West at the expense of links to the Saudi oil. Controlling Iraq will be also a clear message to the Iranians. But Iraq, as aforesaid, is just the beginning. "
In the course of bringing these nations under the influence of the West (and thus making them pro-Israel) the ultimate objective of the US is apparently a Mideastern empire . The fact that the antichrist conquers Egypt is clear in prophecy.
Read this about Egypt and the antichrist . The thing we need to understand is that Armageddon of the Bible is a campaign. Such a campaign may actually be the process of redrawing the Mideastern map as described above (and the reactions of those who oppose it).
Additionally, from the same website, we find:
"The correspondent wrote that the "revolutionary group in the Pentagon is formulating the view point of Rand's institute for practical plans and the aim is a change in the political map by military means." He added that there is also a plan tailored for Israel saying that "Palestine is Israel," which means that the Palestinians can achieve their national ambitions outside their home of origin., namely in a state like Jordan, recalling what Rumsfeld said recently when he described the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as an "alleged occupation."
The correspondent indicates that Jordan will play a main role , according to the plans discussed by the Pentagon, noting that these plans point the end of the story of the Iraqi Baathist regime under the leadership of Saddam Hussein and the foundation of a democratic Iraq to be an integral part of the Hashaimite Kingdom . The correspondent added it was not a mere coincident that the Americans invited that ( former Jordanian crown prince ) prince Hassan from Jordan to two meetings with the Iraqi opposition residents in London. "
Apparently, a new political entity is under consideration within US policy which requires a " king ."
End of 10-29-2002 addition
Concerning the candidacy of Iran as one of the three horns to be "plucked up by the roots."
We read from the op-ed page of today's NY Times referring to a quote from the American Enterprise Institute's Richard Perle-
And he was already looking forward to giving makeovers to other rogue regimes. " I'm rather optimistic that we will see regime change in Iran without any use of military power by the United States ," he said.
Michael Ledeen, an A.E.I. scholar on the same panel, called Iran " just one battle in a broader war. Iran is . . . the mother of modern terrorism. "
Therefore, if the subjugation of Iran is one of the "three kings" to be subdued and this does not take place until the tribulation, then the rapture can not be far away . On the other hand, if Iran is subdued PRIOR to the rapture, Iran would have to be removed from the list of candidates. On Frontline of 03-22-2003 a Yale University professor stated that Saudi Arabia AND Egypt were "undesirable" regimes. So, if Iran is the "mother of modern terrorism" and Saudi Arabia and Egypt are "undesirable" regimes (in the eyes of the "think tanks"); then, there are 3 "kings" ripe for plucking in their view. Of course, if these nations fit the prophecy, their demise will have to be delayed until AFTER the rapture.
One thing to note is this verse:
Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings , which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
This apparently occurs during the second half of the tribulation and is for a short period of time. Since "Persia" (Iran) is one of the invading countries of Gog and Magog from Ezekiel 38-39 (which occurs during the first half of the tribulation or immediately prior ), they may not be one of the later 3 "kings." However, by the time the forces invading Israel are destroyed in the first half of the tribulation or immediately prior, the Mideast map will change considerably.
It may well be too early to determine which of the 3 "kings" will be plucked up. However, in any case, Iran (for one) is considered in the camp of those opposing the rise of a "western" military power in their neighborhood.
For a timeline see this .
From the following website we read-
1612 GMT - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned Nov. 12 against " escalating any tribal and sectarian attitudes and trends towards partitioning " Iraq. He also cautioned all countries neighboring the war-torn country from exerting influence in its reconstruction, and called for a halt to violations of Iraqi territory.
The three horns candidacy of Iraq itself and its partitioning was first mentioned on 04-13-2002 on this page. Why would the president of Egypt be arguing against something that is not being proposed?
From the following website we read-
SITUATION REPORTS - December 21 2003
2315 GMT - Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Massoud Barzani announced Dec. 21 that Kurdish groups will hold a political rally in northern Iraq to proclaim the Kurds' historic right to oil reserves. Demonstrators will present a request to the Tamim Province governor that Kirkuk be included as part of a semiautonomous Kurdish region in the north . Several Kurdish parties -- including the KDP and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan -- led Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) member Jalal Talabani, have submitted a bill to the IGC calling for a federal system that would ensure Kurdish autonomy over three northern provinces.
It is entirely possible as we first cited on 04-13-2002 above, Iraq itself may be divided into 3 autonomous regions which may be the Three Biblical kings. If this becomes the case, (considering the pressure now on the region for action), the prophecy will be fulfilled sooner rather than later.
From the following website http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/SituationReports.neo?showSitReps=1
These articles are in chronological order:
(1542 GMT - The United States reaffirmed its commitment to preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq and said on Jan. 6 that issues such as federalism -- raised in response to the Kurds in the north -- will be settled by the Iraqi people. A senior official from the U.S. State Department said, " You will have a self-governing region in the north with some autonomy, but it's not that big a deal, it's still Iraq."
1813 GMT - L. Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, is holding talks with Kurdish leaders Jalal Talabani and Masoud Barzani, the publication of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) reported Jan. 8. Bremer, Talabani and Barzani reportedly discussed the consolidation of the two legislatures and governments formed by rival Kurd groups in 1994. Iraq's Kurds are demanding a federal system in post-war Iraq and have proposed a plan to the interim Iraqi leadership that would give them greater autonomy.
1519 GMT - Judge Dara Noor al-Din, Kurdish member of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) , said Jan. 9 that the council had accepted a federal structure for Iraq and self-rule for three northern Kurdish provinces in the Basic Law document to be issued in March, Agence France Presse reported. According to the report, the self-rule applies to the provinces of Sulaimaniyah, Dohuk and Arbil; the status of the other three provinces -- Diyala, Nineveh and Tamim -- will be settled by 2006.
1656 GMT - Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, member of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) and leader of the main Shia party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, arrived Jan. 12 in Ankara to meet with both Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. The visit comes within days of the IGC's approval of Kurdish self-rule in a federal Iraq .
As you can see, the dividing of Iraq into 3 parts (kingdoms) with three different "kings" is well underway.
Since an independendent Kurdish state is vehemently opposed by Turkey, read about Turkey's involvement in the Magog invasion of Israel.
From the following website,
Jordan's Prince Hassan raises concerns he's out looking for a kingdom in Iraq
By Jamal Halaby, Associated Press, 2/23/2004 14:31
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) Prince Hassan's hope to visit Iraq soon is sparking fresh speculation the one-time heir to the Jordanian throne unceremoniously dumped by his dying brother after three decades of grooming is a prince in search of a kingdom.
An aide to the prince denied the talk Monday, but such concerns have in the past forced Hassan's nephew, King Abdullah II, to insist Jordan's royal family has no designs on ruling neighboring Iraq.
Last week, Hassan told Al-Arabiya satellite channel that he plans a visit to Baghdad ''soon'' to try to mediate political disputes among factions in the country. He did not say whom he would meet. The aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Hassan is waiting to be invited.
Asked what Hassan would do in Iraq, the aide said he '' will try to facilitate negotiations among the different sects. He will try to mediate between the Sunnis and the Shiites to restore peace and stability in Iraq .'' He rejected any idea the prince ultimately hopes to restore Hashemite rule to Iraq, with himself as king, as ''absolute nonsense.''
The Hashemite dynasty that is the Jordanian royal family ruled Iraq from the end of World War I, when Britain installed King Faisal I, until 1958, when his grandson and Prince Hassan's cousin, King Faisal II, was killed in a coup. A statue of King Faisal I on horseback still graces a square in Baghdad.
Concern about Hassan's ambitions has cropped up before, most notably with his surprise appearance at a 2002 London meeting of Iraqi dissidents plotting to topple Saddam Hussein.
Three months later, King Abdullah was forced to publicly, if gently, rebuke his 56-year-old uncle .
''I am the head of the Hashemite dynasty and I say very clearly that this family has no ambitions to regain leadership in Iraq,'' Abdullah said. Foreign leadership cannot be imposed , he added, and ''if there was any member of this family who thinks in a different way, then that member only represents himself.''
Hassan had been groomed for the Jordanian throne for 34 years until 12 days before his brother, King Hussein, died of cancer in 1999. Hussein accused Hassan of a power grab by trying to dismiss the king's loyalists in the army and cited policy differences in appointing his son, Abdullah, as his successor.
On Monday, Jordanian government officials declined comment on Hassan's plans, but indicated that if he visited Iraq, he would be acting on his own.
In Baghdad, an Iraqi official said the prince has not been in contact with the Iraqi Governing Council and no plans to invite him were under consideration by any Iraqi authority.
An Iraqi political activist said the prince has been meeting in Jordan with some Iraqi tribal and religious leaders , trying to persuade them to support his involvement in resolving Iraq's political conflict .
''He does not tell them openly that he aspires to a leading role, like being a king of Iraq, but this is what everybody feels when they meet him,'' said the activist, who is now in Baghdad after long being based in Jordan. He spoke with The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
Since being shunted aside as crown prince in 1999, Hassan has kept a low profile in Jordan. The Oxford graduate of oriental studies has focused on intellectual pursuits, including chairing an Amman-based think tank, called the Arab Thought Forum, and acting as a moderator for the New York-based World Conference on Religions for Peace.
Apparently Hassan's position is irritating to King Abdullah of Jordan because if anyone in the Hashemite Family is going to rule, it will be the King, not the deposed heir to the throne. Notwithstanding the King's "western" approach to rule, in the Islamic world being "chosen" is a major factor. King Abdullah has made it clear that leadership can not be imposed (on Iraq) and if Hassan were to conduct another attempted power grab (as the former King Hussein saw Hassan's actions), this would certainly infuriate King Abdullah for many reasons. Such an eventuality could lead to a Biblical scenario with the Jordanian King playing a major role.
From the following website:
Jordan, Turkey urge world to end Mideast conflict
ANKARA (Agencies) — His Majesty King Abdullah and Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer said on Tuesday the international community should help end the deteriorating situation in the Palestinian territories and revive the peace process .
Meeting at the Cankaya Palace in Ankara, King Abdullah and Sezer stressed that dialogue is the only way to end the regional tension, find a just solution to the occupied territories' issue and establish an independent Palestinian state, the Jordan News Agency, Petra, reported.
In remarks to the press upon arrival in Ankara, King Abdullah called on Turkey to help end the bloodshed between Israeli and the Palestinians and help establish peace in the Middle East , Agence France-Presse said. “ The cycle of violence must end and we must do everything that we can to help bring the region back to the path of peace ,” the King said ahead of the talks with Sezer. “The important role played by Turkey in the search for peace in our region is very much appreciated and I look forward to our cooperation in this regard.”
On Iraq, the two leaders said the country's security and territorial integrity are “top priorities,” noting that the coming stage, in which Iraqis will run their own affairs, will be critical.
King Abdullah on Monday told Turkey's Hurriyet daily that unrest in Iraq might grow into an ethnic strife and destabilise the region. “ There is a danger of an ethnic war in Iraq. In fact, everybody is aware of that and is trying to prevent it ,” the King was quoted as saying. “ Iraq's neighbours cannot tolerate such a conflict... We should do our best to prevent such an ethnic war .”
One way to guarantee security and territorial integrity (if an ethnic war breaks out with the 3 factions: Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kurds) would be to fulfill the Bible scenario cited above.
From the following website:
Cleric warns on Iraq constitution
Iraq's top Shia cleric has urged the UN not to endorse the Iraqi interim constitution, saying it could lead to the country's break-up
He said the three-person presidency - composed of a Shia, a Sunni and a Kurd - set up under the constitution would encourage sectarianism and partition.
The ayatollah's concerns held up the signing of the document in early March.
The constitution, approved by the US-appointed Governing Council, is a key step in the handover of power from the US-led coalition to Iraqis on 30 June.
It is a fundamental law that is supposed to govern Iraq during its transition period.
It seeks to establish a democratic government, while preserving the rights of the minority Sunnis and Kurds through a federal system.
Ayatollah Sistani - who represents the Shia majority - only agree to the document after expressing deep reservations.
The BBC's Suzy Price, at UN headquarters, says his latest statement threatens to make any future UN role in Iraq even more complicated.
In a letter, the ayatollah's office said he would not meet the UN delegation unless it took "a clear stance that the constitution does not bind the National Assembly and is not mentioned in any new Security Council resolution concerning Iraq".
The letter said the three-member presidency "enshrines sectarianism and ethnicity in the future political system in the country".
The interim document stipulates that decisions taken by the presidency must be unanimous.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said he needed to study the remarks before commenting.
If strife results here among the 3 factions, there will need to be a unifying force. This could well be the Biblical prophecy.
from the following website:
We read of the reaction of the Jordanian King:
A civil war may break out in Iraq: King Abdullah
There was full agreement between Turkey and Jordan over reforms to be made in the Middle East region, the Jordanian king said.
March 17— There was the possibility of civil war breaking out in Iraq, with the chance that any such conflict could spread throughout the region, the King of Jordan said Wednesday.
Speaking in an exclusive interview with television station NTV, King Abdullah said Jordan had long been concerned as to what would happen in Iraq after the war had ended.
“Here the issue that we fear the most is the possibility of a civil war in Iraq,” he said. “This is because a civil war in the region would not be limited to Iraq and can spread to many countries.”
The King said that the recent clashes between Arabs and Kurds in Syria and tensions and unrest in Iran served as a indicator of what might happen if caution was not exercised.
In Turkey for a two day visit, King Abdullah said that his country was of the same opinion as Ankara and shared the same concerns over the future of Iraq.
In reference to a question on the Greater Middle Project, the US proposal for bringing peace and stability to the region the King said that the will for reforms should come from within and not externally.
However, he stressed the need for reforms in the region and called for a draft program of reforms to be prepared at the coming Arab Summit in Tunisia.
“Otherwise we might face a draft reforms enforces by the international society,” he said.
What we have here is a strong impetus for an "Arab solution" to the problem.
From the following website-
Kurds Win Round on Constitution
By DEXTER FILKINS
Published: June 10, 2004
AGHDAD, Iraq, June 9 — Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said Wednesday that his government would adhere to the interim constitution agreed to in March until elections are held next year, in an effort to defuse, at least temporarily, a looming crisis with the Kurdish leadership .
In a statement issued by his office late in the evening, Dr. Allawi's spokesman, George Hada, declared the new government's "full commitment" to the interim constitution until democratic elections are held later this year or in January .
The statement from Dr. Allawi's office followed a threat this week by Kurdish leaders to pull back from the Iraqi state and possibly secede. The leaders were alarmed after officials in New York failed to include the interim constitution in the United Nations Security Council resolution, approved Tuesday, on the return of sovereignty to the Iraqis.
The Kurds are worried that without the protections in the interim constitution, they might lose the broad autonomy they have garnered since 1991 under American military protection. The interim constitution recognizes the autonomy of the Kurdish region and grants the Kurds extraordinary powers to protect it.
But the commitment made by Dr. Allawi will likely only postpone a solution . His statement binds the new Iraqi government to the constitution only during "the provisional period," which will end when elections are held.
Many Shiite leaders say it is at that point, when the Shiites will likely hold a majority of the seats in the national assembly, that they would remove the language that grants the Kurds effective veto power over the permanent constitution .
That language was a central component in the compromise that persuaded the Kurds last March to agree to the interim constitution — and to affirm a commitment to the Iraqi state.
The statement issued by Dr. Allawi's office followed a flurry of activity involving Shiite political leaders and the country's most powerful Shiite religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani. Iraqi officials say Ayatollah Sistani, who earlier this week warned the Security Council against including the interim constitution in the sovereignty resolution, tried to reassure Kurdish leaders.
Kurdish leaders, most of whom have left Baghdad and gone to their homes in the north, reacted cautiously to Dr. Allawi's statement. The top Kurdish leaders spent much of the day discussing the future, which they have increasingly suggested may include secession.
"We are happy to see the prime minister reaffirm his commitment," to the interim constitution, said Barem Saleh, a senior leader of the Patriotic Union for Kurdistan.
But Mr. Saleh said he and other Kurdish leaders were disheartened by what they regarded as a casual commitment made by many Shiite leaders, who endorsed the interim constitution last March only to announce their opposition to parts of it immediately after the signing ceremony.
Mr. Saleh said the Kurdish public, which often clamors for independence from Baghdad, has also been angered by the episode.
"If a community in Iraq wants to hijack the constitutional process in the name of majority rule, this won't work," Mr. Saleh said. "It really smacks of a lack of interest in a viable future."
The impasse over the interim constitution represents the collision of the Shiites' dream of majority rule, which been repressed for centuries, and the Kurdish desire for minority rights, trampled often and brutally in the past.
The key language that worries the Shiites — and is so crucial to the Kurds — relates to the ratification of the permanent constitution. The interim constitution says that the permanent charter will be drawn up after democratic elections, and will be put to a vote of the Iraqi people.
Under the rules, the permanent constitution will pass on a majority vote, unless two-thirds of the voters in three of the country's 18 provinces reject it, in which case it will fail. There are three provinces with a Kurdish majority.
Mowaffak al-Rubiae, Iraq's national security advisor and a Shiite who is close to Ayatollah Sistani, said the dispute was deeper than just one clause. The Shiite leadership, he says, believes it is wrong that an interim constitution that was drawn up by an unelected body — the Iraqi Governing Council — should bind the freely elected national assembly.
He suggested that the assembly would likely disregard all or parts of the document.
"You cannot control the will of the people," he said. "Whatever they will do, they will do."
But Dr. Rubaie said he was sympathetic to Kurdish fears and said Shiite leaders would try over the next several months to reassure the Kurds that they would not lose their autonomous status. "I don't believe a majority of Iraqis would deny the Kurds their rights of full federalism," he said.
For his part, Mr. Saleh said he did not have much patience for the Shiite views.
The interim constitution, with all of the provisions now being objected to, was unanimously approved by the governing council's Shiite leadership, he noted. "When we sign something, we should mean it," he said.
[Comment- Will the ultimate solution, which has now been postponed, be "plucking up by the roots" of three separate "kingdoms" in Iraq? From a quote, above, attributed to the Jordanian King , he makes it abundantly clear that he is opposed to such a division - Speaking in an exclusive interview with television station NTV, King Abdullah said Jordan had long been concerned as to what would happen in Iraq after the war had ended.
“Here the issue that we fear the most is the possibility of a civil war in Iraq,” he said. “This is because a civil war in the region would not be limited to Iraq and can spread to many countries.” ]
There are those that say that Iraq is one of the three horns that has already been subdued and that other nations are to follow (such as Syria) to bring the total to three. It must be pointed out that in Revelation 17:12 it is said the ten horns are ten kings which receive power as kings one hour with the beast. This implies that the ten kings (three of whom will be plucked up) will come to power for a short span during the tribulation. Revelation 17:12, in and of itself, precludes what has already happened in Iraq from being ONE of the uprootings because it is said that the ten kings have received no kingdom as yet. Further, in Daniel 7:24, it says that the antichrist shall subdue three kings. This same verse says that another shall arise AFTER the ten kings and it is he [the antichrist] that shall subdue three kings . If the overthrow of Iraq that happened a year ago represents this verse, this would make General Tommy Franks or George Bush the antichrist. Additionally, since the antichrist (the subduer) arises AFTER the ten kings, this would require the "ten-toed" kingdom to already exist BEFORE the Iraq invasion of 2002 and since the events of Rev 17:12 are clearly during the tribulation, this scenario is precluded. The subduing is yet future and after the rapture. It may well be that the whole of Iraq will be ONE king (versus 3). Only time will tell, but, we will be watching.
from the following website-
My Summary of this Article-
1) Israel warned the US in 2003 to close the border between Iran and Iraq to prevent Iraqi insurgency
2) The US did not ignore the Israelis; they just did not want the added burden of Iran
3) So, the border stayed open
4) The Israelis believe Iran is making a nuclear bomb and is responsible for a large part of the Iraqi insurgency
5) To offset the Iranians, the Israelis are training the Kurds in commando tactics (in Iraq, Syria, and Iran), PLAN B
6) The Kurds are angry over their "2nd class citizenship" in Iraq
7) "Kurdistan" covers Northern Iraq, Southern Turkey, Western Iran, and Northern Syria
8) Turkey and Israel are allies but Turkey is serious about opposing Kurd independence and the breakup of Iraq
9) The Israelis are trying to convince Turkey that they are doing "nothing harmful"
10) The US has shown no real opposition to Kurdish independence
11) Syria, Iran, and Turkey are all upset with the Israelis for "encouraging" the Kurds
12) The minister of Iraq, Alawi, has many enemies and was involved in bringing Saddam to power along with the CIA.
One of those interviewed referred to Alawi as a "thug."
13) Many people are leaving Baghdad in expectation of more violence
14) the "neo-cons" of the US administration had a chance to invite other nations into Iraq but did so only after "panicking"
15) Israel activity with the Kurds could actually lead to war and a situation worse than Iraq (even more Mideast instability)
16) Getting at the roots of the insurgency (via Gitmotizing Abu Ghraib) was the unfortunate result of not closing the border
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
As June 30th approaches, Israel looks to the Kurds.
Issue of 2004-06-28
In July, 2003, two months after President Bush declared victory in Iraq, the war, far from winding down, reached a critical point. Israel, which had been among the war’s most enthusiastic supporters, began warning the Administration that the American-led occupation would face a heightened insurgency—a campaign of bombings and assassinations—later that summer . Israeli intelligence assets in Iraq were reporting that the insurgents had the support of Iranian intelligence operatives and other foreign fighters, who were crossing the unprotected border between Iran and Iraq at will. The Israelis urged the United States to seal the nine-hundred-mile-long border, at whatever cost.
The warnings of increased violence proved accurate. By early August, the insurgency against the occupation had exploded , with bombings in Baghdad, at the Jordanian Embassy and the United Nations headquarters, that killed forty-two people. A former Israeli intelligence officer said that Israel’s leadership had concluded by then that the United States was unwilling to confront Iran ; in terms of salvaging the situation in Iraq, he said, “it doesn’t add up. It’s over. Not militarily—the United States cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq—but politically. ”
The Bush people could have gone to their allies and got more boots on the ground. But the neocons were dug in—‘We’re doing this on our own.’”
Leverett went on, “The President was only belatedly coming to the understanding that he had to either make a strategic change or, if he was going to insist on unilateral control, get tougher and find the actual insurgency.” The Administration then decided, Leverett said, to “ deploy the Guantánamo model in Iraq ”—to put aside its rules of interrogation. That decision failed to stop the insurgency and eventually led to the scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison.
In early November, the President received a grim assessment from the C.I.A.’s station chief in Baghdad, who filed a special field appraisal, known internally as an Aardwolf, warning that the security situation in Iraq was nearing collapse . The document, as described by Knight-Ridder, said that “none of the postwar Iraqi political institutions and leaders have shown an ability to govern the country” or to hold elections and draft a constitution.
A former Administration official who had supported the war completed a discouraging tour of Iraq late last fall. He visited Tel Aviv afterward and found that the Israelis he met with were equally discouraged. As they saw it, their warnings and advice had been ignored, and the American war against the insurgency was continuing to founder. “I spent hours talking to the senior members of the Israeli political and intelligence community,” the former official recalled. “Their concern was ‘You’re not going to get it right in Iraq, and shouldn’t we be planning for the worst-case scenario and how to deal with it? ’”
Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister, who supported the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq, took it upon himself at this point to privately warn Vice-President Dick Cheney that America had lost in Iraq; according to an American close to Barak, he said that Israel “had learned that there’s no way to win an occupation.” The only issue, Barak told Cheney, “was choosing the size of your humiliation.”
In a series of interviews in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States, officials told me that by the end of last year Israel had concluded that the Bush Administration would not be able to bring stability or democracy to Iraq, and that Israel needed other options. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government decided, I was told, to minimize the damage that the war was causing to Israel’s strategic position by expanding its long-standing relationship with Iraq’s Kurds and establishing a significant presence on the ground in the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan . Several officials depicted Sharon’s decision, which involves a heavy financial commitment, as a potentially reckless move that could create even more chaos and violence as the insurgency in Iraq continues to grow.
Israeli intelligence and military operatives are now quietly at work in Kurdistan, providing training for Kurdish commando units and, most important in Israel’s view, running covert operations inside Kurdish areas of Iran and Syria. Israel feels particularly threatened by Iran, whose position in the region has been strengthened by the war. The Israeli operatives include members of the Mossad, Israel’s clandestine foreign-intelligence service, who work undercover in Kurdistan as businessmen and, in some cases, do not carry Israeli passports.
(certain officials denied that the Israelis are doing this)
However, a senior C.I.A. official acknowledged in an interview last week that the Israelis were indeed operating in Kurdistan. He told me that the Israelis felt that they had little choice: “They think they have to be there.” Asked whether the Israelis had sought approval from Washington, the official laughed and said, “Do you know anybody who can tell the Israelis what to do? They’re always going to do what is in their best interest.” The C.I.A. official added that the Israeli presence was widely known in the American intelligence community.
The Israeli decision to seek a bigger foothold in Kurdistan—characterized by the former Israeli intelligence officer as “Plan B ”—has also raised tensions between Israel and Turkey. It has provoked bitter statements from Turkish politicians and, in a major regional shift, a new alliance among Iran, Syria, and Turkey , all of which have significant Kurdish minorities. In early June, Intel Brief, a privately circulated intelligence newsletter produced by Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. counterterrorism chief, and Philip Giraldi, who served as the C.I.A.’s deputy chief of base in Istanbul in the late nineteen-eighties, said:
Turkish sources confidentially report that the Turks are increasingly concerned by the expanding Israeli presence in Kurdistan and alleged encouragement of Kurdish ambitions to create an independent state . . . . The Turks note that the large Israeli intelligence operations in Northern Iraq incorporate anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian activity, including support to Iranian and Syrian Kurds who are in opposition to their respective governments.
The new alliance among Iran, Syria, and Turkey (since many of the nations of "Gog" are actually in Turkey) are pointing toward the the Gog invasion of Israel .
As far as most Kurds are concerned, however, historic “Kurdistan” extends well beyond Iraq’s borders, encompassing parts of Iran, Syria, and Turkey. All three countries fear that Kurdistan, despite public pledges to the contrary, will declare its independence from the interim Iraqi government if conditions don’t improve after June 30th.
The Iraqi Kurdish leadership was furious when, early this month, the United States acceded to a U.N. resolution on the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty that did not affirm the interim constitution that granted the minority Kurds veto power in any permanent constitution.
There are fears that the Kurds will move to seize the city of Kirkuk, together with the substantial oil reserves in the surrounding region. Kirkuk is dominated by Arab Iraqis, many of whom were relocated there, beginning in the nineteen-seventies, as part of Saddam Hussein’s campaign to “Arabize” the region, but the Kurds consider Kirkuk and its oil part of their historic homeland. “ If Kirkuk is threatened by the Kurds, the Sunni insurgents will move in there, along with the Turkomen, and there will be a bloodbath ,” an American military expert who is studying Iraq told me. “And, even if the Kurds do take Kirkuk, they can’t transport the oil out of the country, since all of the pipelines run through the Sunni-Arab heartland.”
A top German national-security official said in an interview that “ an independent Kurdistan with sufficient oil would have enormous consequences for Syria, Iran, and Turkey” and would lead to continuing instability in the Middle East—no matter what the outcome in Iraq is . There is also a widespread belief, another senior German official said, that some elements inside the Bush Administration —he referred specifically to the faction headed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz— would tolerate an independent Kurdistan . This, the German argued, would be a mistake. “It would be a new Israel—a pariah state in the middle of hostile nations.”
A declaration of independence would trigger a Turkish response—and possibly a war—and also derail what has been an important alliance for Israel .
A European foreign minister, in a conversation last month, said that the “blowing up” of Israel’s alliance with Turkey would be a major setback for the region. He went on, “ To avoid chaos, you need the neighbors to work as one common entity. ”
Daniel 11:44 says that - But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him (the antichrist): therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. Is it possible that the antichrist from the Jordan area shall pluck up three kings to the east and to the north (the Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kurds of the Iraq region) and that he does this to preserve the common entity , to avoid chaos ? (Remember this takes place AFTER the rapture .) Remember, we quoted the Jordanian king above when he said-
“Here the issue that we fear the most is the possibility of a civil war in Iraq,” he said. “This is because a civil war in the region would not be limited to Iraq and can spread to many countries.” - King Abdullah
The Israelis, however, view the neighborhood, with the exception of Kurdistan, as hostile. Israel is convinced that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, and that, with Syria’s help, it is planning to bolster Palestinian terrorism as Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip .
Iraqi Shiite militia leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr, the former American intelligence official said, are seen by the Israeli leadership as “stalking horses” for Iran—owing much of their success in defying the American-led coalition to logistical and communications support and training provided by Iran.
“Israel’s immediate goal after June 30th is to build up the Kurdish commando units to balance the Shiite militias—especially those which would be hostile to the kind of order in southern Iraq that Israel would like to see,” the former senior intelligence official said. “Of course, if a fanatic Sunni Baathist militia took control—one as hostile to Israel as Saddam Hussein was—Israel would unleash the Kurds on it, too.” The Kurdish armed forces, known as the peshmerga, number an estimated seventy-five thousand troops, a total that far exceeds the known Sunni and Shiite militias.
The former Israeli intelligence officer acknowledged that since late last year Israel has been training Kurdish commando units to operate in the same manner and with the same effectiveness as Israel’s most secretive commando units, the Mistaravim. The initial goal of the Israeli assistance to the Kurds, the former officer said, was to allow them to do what American commando units had been unable to do—penetrate, gather intelligence on, and then kill off the leadership of the Shiite and Sunni insurgencies in Iraq . (I was unable to learn whether any such mission had yet taken place.) “The feeling was that this was a more effective way to get at the insurgency,” the former officer said. “But the growing Kurdish-Israeli relationship began upsetting the Turks no end. Their issue is that the very same Kurdish commandos trained for Iraq could infiltrate and attack in Turkey.”
The Kurdish-Israeli collaboration inevitably expanded, the Israeli said. Some Israeli operatives have crossed the border into Iran, accompanied by Kurdish commandos, to install sensors and other sensitive devices that primarily target suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. The former officer said, “Look, Israel has always supported the Kurds in a Machiavellian way—as balance against Saddam. It’s Realpolitik.” He added, “By aligning with the Kurds, Israel gains eyes and ears in Iran, Iraq, and Syria.” He went on, “What Israel was doing with the Kurds was not so unacceptable in the Bush Administration.”
Michel Samaha, the Lebanese Minister of Information, told me that while the disturbances amounted to an uprising by the Kurds against the leadership of Bashir Assad, the Syrian President, his government had evidence that Israel was “preparing the Kurds to fight all around Iraq, in Syria, Turkey, and Iran. They’re being programmed to do commando operations .”
One of the senior German officials told me, “The critical question is ‘What will the behavior of Iran be if there is an independent Kurdistan with close ties to Israel?’ Iran does not want an Israeli land-based aircraft carrier”—that is, a military stronghold—“on its border.”
Another senior European official said, “The Iranians would do something positive in the south of Iraq if they get something positive in return, but Washington won’t do it. The Bush Administration won’t ask the Iranians for help, and can’t ask the Syrians. Who is going to save the United States?” He added that, at the start of the American invasion of Iraq, several top European officials had told their counterparts in Iran, “You will be the winners in the region.”
Patrick Clawson, of the Institute for Near East Policy, ... told me that Israel’s overwhelming national-security concern must be Iran. Given that a presence in Kurdistan would give Israel a way to monitor the Iranian nuclear effort, he said, “it would be negligent for the Israelis not to be there.”
At the moment, the former American senior intelligence official said, the Israelis’ tie to Kurdistan “would be of greater value than their growing alliance with Turkey. ‘We love Turkey but got to keep the pressure on Iran.’” The former Israeli intelligence officer said, “The Kurds were the last surviving group close to the United States with any say in Iraq. The only question was how to square it with Turkey.”
There may be no way to square it with Turkey. Over breakfast in Ankara, a senior Turkish official explained, “Before the war, Israel was active in Kurdistan, and now it is active again. This is very dangerous for us, and for them, too. We do not want to see Iraq divided, and we will not ignore it.” Then, citing a popular Turkish proverb—“We will burn a blanket to kill a flea”—he said, “We have told the Kurds, ‘We are not afraid of you, but you should be afraid of us.’” (A Turkish diplomat I spoke to later was more direct: “ We tell our Israeli and Kurdish friends that Turkey’s good will lies in keeping Iraq together. We will not support alternative solutions .”)
“ If you end up with a divided Iraq, it will bring more blood, tears, and pain to the Middle East, and you will be blamed ,” the senior Turkish official said. “From Mexico to Russia, everybody will claim that the United States had a secret agenda in Iraq: you came there to break up Iraq. If Iraq is divided, America cannot explain this to the world.” The official compared the situation to the breakup of Yugoslavia, but added, “In the Balkans, you did not have oil.” He said, “The lesson of Yugoslavia is that when you give one country independence everybody will want it.” If that happens, he said, “ Kirkuk will be the Sarajevo of Iraq. If something happens there, it will be impossible to contain the crisis .”
Middle East diplomats and former C.I.A. operatives who now consult in Baghdad have told me that many wealthy Iraqi businessmen and their families have deserted Baghdad in recent weeks in anticipation of continued, and perhaps heightened, suicide attacks and terror bombings after June 30th . “We’ll see Christians, Shiites, and Sunnis getting out,” Michel Samaha, the Lebanese Minister of Information, reported. “What the resistance is doing is targeting the poor people who run the bureaucracy—those who can’t afford to pay for private guards. A month ago, friends of mine who are important landowners in Iraq came to Baghdad to do business. The cost of one day’s security was about twelve thousand dollars.”
Friends, the Bible is amazingly accurate. Look at the wide geographical influence of the Kurds . Traditional Kurdistan is marked on the map. This "Kurdistan" is per Rand-McNally. (The above link text has been amended on 01-07-2006 to refute the false assertions of another site. Follow the link to "Kuridstan" to see the text.)
Are there "THREE Kings" already in charge of Iraq? It surely appears to be the case.
This is really amazing to me. Just looking at this is exciting. We could be wrong about this, but, we could be right about it too.
From the Official Website of the Iraqi Interim Government. The government of Iraq is presently an "interim" government until elections are held.
الرئاسة التنفيذية للحكومة العراقية الانتقالية
Executive of the Iraqi Interim Government
Dr Ayad Allawai is listed as the number one member of the Cabinet as Prime Minister.
The interesting thing about these 3 "executives" is that the scripture is very specific-
Daniel 7:8 I considered the horns[the TEN], and, behold, there came up among them another little horn , before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots : and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Continuing with Daniel's endtime beast, we see that " another...shall SUBDUE THREE KINGS ."
Daniel 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings .
By the use of the expression "BEFORE WHOM THERE WERE THREE of the first horns plucked up by the roots", it is made clear that the antichrist assumes authority by virtue of the 3 kings being plucked up. Iraq will be a nation ripe for such an action (particularly after the rapture when the US military suddenly loses some troops). About a year ago I told my children at the dinner table that the "2nd" president of Iraq (the one after the interim president) would be the antichrist. Unfortunately, one of them thought and still thinks that this is all a big "joke." Your prayers are appreciated.
From the following webpage-
We read of a proposed Mideast plan-
1.Convene an international conference on Iraq under UN auspices in London to which representatives of NATO, the EU and interested Middle Eastern powers — such as Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia — will be invited.
2.The conference will reach an agreement on the process of devolving political power to Iraqi leaders, which will probably be based on a creation of a loose federal system in which the Arab-Shiites, Arab-Sunnis and Kurds enjoy limited autonomy.
3.The security in each region of Iraq would be provided by the combined effort of local and outside forces. What will emerge in the short-term will be three Kosovo-like international protectorates .
4.NATO forces led by U.S. troops will help provide security in the Kurdish North. Troops from Moslem countries will be deployed in the Shiite South — while military forces from the Arab League will play a similar role in the Sunni triangle .
5.The EU will be chosen to administer the economic reconstruction of Iraq — with French, German and other European companies and aid agencies taking part in the process.
6.The United States will reactivate the Israel/Palestine peace process and will ask the EU to play a more active role in the process.
7.An interim agreement to end the violence between the sides could lead to deployment of NATO peacekeeping forces in Gaza and the West Bank — with the EU contributing much of the economic assistance to the emerging Palestinian entity.
According to the webpage, who would propose such a thing?
[These] are the steps [referring to the 7 steps above] that a President Kerry would probably take.
This page is continued here.
How is a Man Saved
Please e-mail us with questions or comments today.