June 2002 Vol.5, No. 5 Contents by Melvin Rhodes by Darris McNeely by Darris McNeely by Cecil E. Maranville  Book Review: Statecraft by Margaret Thatcher by John Ross Schroeder  by Darris McNeely, John Ross Schroeder and Jim Tuck This Is the Way...Making Sense in a Senseless Neighborhood by Robin Webber Still Not Fully Realized-- The West Is Fighting for Its Survival Islamic fundamentalism became front-page news after Sept. 11--but that doesn't mean there was no problem earlier. There certainly was plenty of warning, although nobody could have predicted the precise way in which fundamentalists would get the West's attention. Few would have listened anyway. by Melvin Rhodes Parviz C. Radji was the Iranian ambassador to London in the months and years leading up to the overthrow of the shah in January 1979, a few weeks before British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher came to office. Prior to becoming the prime minister, Mrs. Thatcher was the leader of the opposition Conservative party. In his book, In the Service of the Peacock Throne, Mr. Radji recounts a dinner with Mrs. Thatcher prior to a visit she was to make to Tehran, capital of Iran. The account from his diary entry of Wednesday, April 26, 1978, reads: "I try to impress Mrs. Thatcher with my analysis of the Iranian/Middle Eastern situation but I suspect that I somehow fail. There is, to be sure, "perfect understanding," to use the hackneyed diplomatic phrase, on such subjects as the dangers of world communist expansionism, the need for strong defenses, and a firm hand in dealing with terrorism. But on less clear-cut issues, such as the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and its anti-Western bias, I don't believe I retain her interest" (1983, p. 172, emphasis added). Clearly, even the most memorable leaders have their faults. It's easy to understand why. The post-Christian West no longer takes religion seriously, so it's difficult for Western leaders to comprehend the threat that may come to the West from non-Christian religions. A few months after that dinner, the United States learned firsthand the threat of Islamic fundamentalism when Iranian students, followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini whose supporters overthrew the shah, stormed the American Embassy in Tehran and held U.S. Embassy staff as hostages for 444 days. For the next two decades, Americans would look back on this event and blame it on the weakness of the president in office at the time. Sadly, an opportunity was lost to prepare for a major assault by the forces of Islamic fundamentalism. Even sadder, there still seems to be little understanding of the serious threat to the free world that Islamic fundamentalist terrorism poses. Sometimes the problem is simply a failure to join the dots, to put two and two together. Increased challenges for allies For months now there has been talk of replacing Saddam Hussein as president of Iraq. While talk of this ambitious military action continued, the Israeli-Palestinian problem flared up. Coincidence? Not when you consider that Saddam offered to pay the families of all suicide bombers $25,000, a great deal of money to people who have lived in refugee camps for over 50 years and see little prospect of an end to their misery. As long as the heightened tensions on the West Bank continue, it is more difficult for the United States and Britain to act against Saddam. To say that this is a victory for Saddam does not detract from the reality that he is a despotic tyrant who is a major threat to the West. Try telling that to the Europeans--busily making money from trade ties to Iraq and other Mideast nations that sponsor terrorism. Consider also Kashmir. Following an attack by Islamic militants on an Indian military camp, Pakistan and India are on the verge of another military conflict, one which this time could go nuclear. As I write this, on its Web page the BBC is reporting British government plans to get British citizens out of the area in the event of a nuclear war. Any conflict between these two powers will automatically put a stop to any allied efforts to find Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and any leftover al Qaeda dregs that might still be roaming in the mountains of the Hindu Kush. This will be another victory for the forces of Islamic fundamentalism. A further victory for Islam became apparent during President Bush's visit to Europe. It's amazing to realize the incredible deterioration in relations between Europe and America since Sept. 11. The Bush administration, reacting to the biggest attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor, understandably has made the War on Terror a top priority. Many Europeans have a different perspective. Some even feel that the United States deserved what happened on Sept. 11. Demonstrators attacked the U.S. president for being a "cowboy," ready to aggressively attack poor Third World nations to pursue American interests. It's difficult for Americans to understand this attitude. In the last month, French nationals were killed in a terrorist attack on their bus in Pakistan, while Germans were killed in Tunisia in an attack on a synagogue. Perhaps the tendency toward appeasement goes back to the end of the colonial period when Western Europeans started to feel sympathy for nationalist movements rebelling against the ruling Western powers. There was also a sense of guilt over their wealth in contrast to the relative poverty of some of their colonies. Liberal, socialist ideas were sweeping across Europe in advance of the Soviet army. In reality, the Russians were the greatest imperialist power of the 20th century. But reality has little to do with perception, particularly when the media is dominated by leftists with their own agenda. The Palestinians are usually seen as poor, oppressed, subject peoples, while the Israelis seem like the bad, rich, Western colonialists. In reality, Israel is a small country with a small population, surrounded by hostile powers with much larger populations. Just as Europe and America are drifting apart, Americans themselves are increasingly divided. There are those in the United States who realize that terrorism poses the greatest threat to the American republic ever. Increasingly, there are others who believe in "business as usual," wanting to get back to the party politics of personal self-aggrandizement and the pursuit of their own interests. My local newspaper is back to lengthy articles on the rights of women, gays and minorities, including Muslims. Perhaps it's simply a case of denial, a refusal deep down to contemplate the realities facing the United States. One American commentator described the United States as the only country that suffers from National ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). Nine months after Sept. 11, many Americans just want to put it all behind them and forget about it. Fight for survival Not so for conservative columnist Cal Thomas. In an editorial titled "U.S. Is in Fight for Its Survival" (Lansing State Journal, May 26, 2002), Mr. Thomas wrote about Vice President Dick Cheney's warning one week earlier that "another terror attack on the United States is inevitable," and the warning from the FBI director that it's only a matter of time until "suicide bombers" attack America. Reminding readers that the Senate Intelligence Committee estimates there are 100 al Qaeda terrorist cells operating in the United States, Mr. Thomas asks how the U.S. government will react if (when?) the terrorists in these cells "decide to simultaneously blow themselves up in shopping malls, apartment buildings, a mega church, a synagogue and several airports all on the same day, killing thousands of people?" Continuing, Cal Thomas writes: "An acquaintance of mine predicts "vigilante-ism of a kind like we've never seen before" following any new terrorist attacks." In proposing solutions he adds: "We must find new ways of keeping people out of America who come from regions of the world with a record of exporting death. That means no more "students" from Middle Eastern countries and no more immigration until we can do a better job of profiling those who come here. If that means stationing troops along both borders, electric fences, high walls, guarding our ports and installing listening devices, so be it." In summation, he adds: "Should another terrorist attack occur, we'd better be prepared to strike at home and abroad without warning, without hesitation and with the full force of American military, political and moral might." The ailing 82-year-old pope also sees the impending threat, though his concern is not for the United States. Visiting Azerbaijan the day before President Bush arrived in Europe, the pope was again reaching out to Islam in the hope of averting further religious conflict. With only 150 Catholics in the country, his visit was not to his own flock. It was political. The Catholic Church has all too often been at the center of the 1,400-year-old struggle between Islam and Christianity. Others see the increasing threat, too. First France and then Holland were shocked at recent election results that saw big gains for the extreme right political parties. They now join Austria, Italy and Denmark, five ancient European nations whose citizens show an increased fear of foreigners and, especially since Sept. 11, Muslims. It will be interesting to see who wins the German election in a couple of months. It seems likely that Germany's Social Democratic government may be replaced by the conservative Christian Democrat, Christian Social Union and their Bavarian leader Edmund Stoiber, whose mentor was Franz Josef Strauss. Russia also sees the threat from Islamic fundamentalists. The recent deaths of Russian veterans and children in a terrorist bomb blast on Victory Day, commemorating the end of World War II, visibly angered President Putin, who blamed Chechen rebels, Muslims supported by al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Prophesied Islamic threat Bible prophecy is interesting in the light of these developments. Daniel chapter 11 gives us an overview of the Middle East in prophecy. While most of the chapter was fulfilled over two thousand years ago, though after Daniel lived, the last few verses are yet to be fulfilled. With no Jewish nation in the Middle East from the time of the Romans until the restoration of a Jewish homeland in 1948, there is a big time gap in this chapter. Suddenly, in verse 40 we read: "At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships" A power to the south of Jerusalem is prophesied to attack ("push at," KJV) a power to the north of Jerusalem. Not necessarily due south or north. The king of the South in ancient times was Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty; the king of the North was Syria under the Seleucids. These two powers often fought over Jerusalem and its environs, as did the later Roman Empire. Their repeated invasions came from the south and the north. Could the modern king of the South be resurgent Islam? For two centuries the Western colonial powers dominated the Middle East. Since World War II the West has been progressively pushed out of the area as first Arab nationalism and then Islamic fundamentalism took over. The biggest single turning point was the rebirth of the Jewish homeland in May 1948. Immediately, five Arab armies surrounded Israel and tried to crush the half million Jews who were the occupants of this new land. They failed. But this has not stopped attempts to destroy the Jewish state. The humiliation of the Arab armies led to revolutions in some Arab nations. In 1952 King Farouk of Egypt was overthrown. Six years later the king of Iraq and most of his family were murdered in a bloody military coup that led in time to Saddam Hussein coming to power. Many attempts were made on the life of King Hussein of Jordan. The British were pushed out of Aden and withdrew from the Gulf States; the French lost Algeria. King Idris of Libya was overthrown in 1969 by the fanatical nationalist Mu'ammar Gadhafi. Ten years later, Islamic fundamentalism overthrew the non-Arab shah of Iran. One after the other, pro-Western governments were replaced by more radical regimes, either Arab nationalist or Islamic fundamentalist. Now we see the two coming together. While Saddam Hussein is an Arab nationalist, he has never been seen as a religious man, until now. Since Sept. 11 he is increasingly being shown on Iraqi television (and on billboards) at prayer and is lavishly spending millions of dollars in building the biggest mosque in the world. He is offering total support to the Palestinians in their struggle with Israel, as is Osama bin Laden. The distinction between nationalists and fundamentalists is increasingly blurred. At the same time, cooperation between al Qaeda leaders and the presidents of the various Islamic nations is increasing as peoples throughout the Islamic world are increasingly incensed at what is seen as Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. Why now? Satellite television, that's why. Until four years ago there was no Arabic language satellite TV station. Now there is. Broadcast from Abu Dhabi, Muslims across the region can now see Palestinians suffering 18 hours a day. Naturally, there is no film of Israelis suffering daily homicide bombings. American newscaster Ted Koppel, monitoring the al-Jazeera television network shortly after the September terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, was shocked at how anti-American all callers into a four-hour television phone-in were. It's a simple logic: "Israel is trying to kill the Palestinians. Israel must die. America supports Israel. America must die." Whether he is dead or alive, Osama bin Laden's perceived victories against the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1989 and against the United States in September 2001 have inspired Muslims across the world to push against the West. This has been building up for some time. J.T. Caruso, the assistant director of the FBI's counter-terrorism division, made a statement to a congressional committee on Dec. 18 confirming that "al-Qaida had supported "Islamic fighters" in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Chechnya and the Philippines" ("Colonial Wars" by Neil Clark, The Spectator (UK), April 13, 2002, p. 24). And yes, your memory is working correctly--the United States was on the same side as al Qaeda, helping them, in fact, in the first three of those five conflicts! The future looks bleak. Islamic fundamentalism is certainly on the rise. Ironically, if the United States and Britain are able to remove Saddam from power, the most likely replacement for his regime would be an Islamic fundamentalist government. The same is true in other nations across the Islamic world. Pakistan is particularly vulnerable in this area. Islamic, or sharia law, is already in force in the country. As it is also in distant northern Nigeria, where Christian churches have been burned to the ground with worshipers in them. The Sudanese civil war continues with the ruling northern Muslims persecuting southern Christians and even taking them as slaves. In Indonesia, too, there have been attacks on Christians by Muslims. Perception lagging behind reality Joining the dots, what is becoming apparent is that Islamic forces across the globe are increasingly cooperating, working together to defeat their common enemy, the West. Those jubilant crowds out on the streets of the Islamic world within minutes of the successful terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 were not atypical. What we see here is the beginning of another world war, in the sense that the conflict is international, with outbreaks of violence occurring on four continents. Meanwhile, the West has scarcely moved on since that dinner with Mrs. Thatcher. Western governments still maintain that the threat is not Islam in general, but a few militants in particular. Immigration policies remain unchanged, allowing the internal threat to worsen with every arriving plane. Hollywood still churns out the same garbage that only feeds the universal hatred of Western values. And little if anything is being done anywhere to reduce dependence on Middle East oil. One of the greatest 20th century writers was George Orwell, who wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. Orwell involved himself in the Spanish Civil War (1936 to 1939) on the side of the leftist Republicans against the fascists who were aided by Nazi Germany and Italy's Mussolini. Vainly trying to warn the dominant Western power of the time, Great Britain, Orwell wrote an essay called "While England Sleeps," warning of the impending threat from fascism. Meanwhile, Britain's prime minister was negotiating with Hitler and promising "peace in our time." The West is still asleep to the crisis that is building daily. Today, almost all the wars that dominate our nightly news have a certain commonality. It can be summed up in one word: Islam. The king of the South has arrived and is pushing against the powers of the North, even as the North divides. The prophesied biblical scenario is coming to pass before our eyes. For more on this subject we recommend reading our free booklet, The Book of Revelation Unveiled. Contact any of our offices, or download them from our Web site at www.ucg.org. wnp Send any comments / changes regarding this page to webmaster@churchofgodtwincities.org © 2002-2022 United Church of God, an International Association