Information Related to "World News & Trends May 2009"
| Audio/Video |
According to The Guardian, U.S. President Barack Obama has warned that "suspected rogue states, such as North Korea or Iran, may be persuaded to abandon their quests only if the big nuclear powers set an example." He specifically stated that "we can't reduce the threat of nuclear weapons going off unless those that possess the most nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia, take serious steps to reduce our stockpiles" ("Obama's New Offensive Against Nuclear Weapons," April 4, 2009).
In spite of warnings from the American, Japanese and South Korean presidents, North Korea defiantly launched a long-range missile April 4 in clear violation of UN Resolution 1718 prohibiting this nation from all such activities. Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts have done virtually nothing to deter Iran from pursuing its own nuclear ambitions.
But what many may not understand is that "North Korea and Iran have been collaborating on building missiles; the two are thought to have worked together in Iran to improve on basic North Korean missile designs at times when it has been impolitic for the North to test for itself. Iran has learned a great deal from this work; recently it has been making strides in its own missile technology" ("Proliferation United in Defiance," The Economist, Feb. 28, 2009, emphasis added throughout).
Veteran journalist Con Coughlin categorically stated that "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is about to turn Iran into a nuclear rogue state" ("His Master's Angry Voice," Standpoint, Feb. 9, 2009). Meanwhile, the United Nations again confirmed that Iran is refusing to cooperate with inspectors charged with monitoring Iran's nuclear program.
President Obama has tried to open up a direct dialogue with Iran on this nuclear issue. Still, some observers like America's former UN Ambassador John Bolton have said that "the danger is that direct talks may facilitate, not reduce, threats to U.S. interests" ("Iran Clinches Its Fist," The Wall Street Journal,March 3, 2009).
But most alarmingly, the Financial Times published an article by a correspondent in Washington, D.C., titled "US May Cede to Iran's Nuclear Ambition" (April 4-5, 2009). Astonishingly, the text begins by stating, "U.S. officials are considering whether to accept Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment ...." This possible reversal of policy certainly looks a lot like appeasement!
Review of U.S. policy in this matter has been commissioned by the White House, and "diplomats are discussing whether the U.S. will eventually have to accept Iran's insistence on carrying out the process."
Former U.S. presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City during the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, wrote an incisive article for the September-October 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs. Titled "Towards a Realistic Peace," it emphasized several unpleasant truths.
"Above all we must understand that our enemies are emboldened by signs of weakness," he wrote. "Radical Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, the Khobar Towers facility in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. In some instances we responded inadequately. In others we failed to respond at all. Our retreat from Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993 convinced them that our will was weak."
Giuliani concluded his article with this telling statement: "The 9/11 generation has learned from the history of the twentieth century that America must not turn a blind eye to gathering storms . . . Above all, we have learned that evil must be confronted-not appeased-because only principled strength can lead to a realistic peace."
When Giuliani wrote these uncomfortable facts, he may have been anticipating the challenge of serving as U.S. president. The question is: Will the current president heed them? (Sources: The Guardian, Standpoint, Financial Times, The Economist [all London], The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs.)
The toughest decision you have to make about Iran is whether you are willing in the final resort to attack its nuclear facilities to stop it getting a bomb. Everything else flows from that call" ("Subject: Iran," The Economist, Dec. 20, 2008). These are the sobering words of U.S. Senator John McCain, former Republican presidential candidate. He further stated that "the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be an Iran with a bomb."
It seems highly unlikely that the United States will use military means to deal with a persistently defiant Iran. The state of Israel, however, could present an altogether different scenario. If this tiny nation perceives that its national survival is in serious jeopardy, it could decide to act independently.
As The Jewish Chronicle notes, "Retired General, Professor Yitzhak Ben Yisrael, who headed the air force's Intelligence Department and the Defence Ministry's Research and Development Directorate, has said that Israel is 'technically capable' of neutralising the Iranian threat" ("Israel Ponders Going It Alone on Iran Strike," March 27, 2009).
Should Israel choose to act, its air force would be exposed to Russian-supplied Iranian antiaircraft missiles. Iranian nuclear sites are at the end of the Israeli jets' range, and America has so far refused to sell Israel aircraft that could be used for refueling in the air. Further, Israel would realistically have to cross Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air space to reach Iran.
Is the Israeli clock ticking faster than the American clock? Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that "time is slipping through our fingers" regarding Iran. "'What is needed,' he added, 'is a two-pronged course of action which includes ironclad strenuous actions . . . and a readiness to consider options in the event these sanctions do not succeed" ("Obama's Iran Crisis," The Wall Street Journal, March 3, 2009).
Voices like Israel's President Shimon Peres have previously warned against a strike. He said, "I don't believe in the military option-any kind of military option" (The Times, Sept. 7, 2008). But new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed entirely different views in the past. Certainly he is facing perhaps the toughest decision of his life. It is, however, hard to conceive of him taking military action without tacit American approval. He is scheduled to travel to Washington, D.C., in May.
Still, London Times foreign editor Richard Beeston stated that "Tehran's growing nuclear capability mixed with the Netanyahu Cabinet's military experience . . . could be a lethal cocktail" ("Only Obama Can Save Iran From Israeli Bombs," April 3, 2009).
Meanwhile, the clock telling us when it will be too late continues to tick. According to an Arutz Sheva Israel National News article: "IDF Intelligence Chief Gen. Amos Yadlin confirmed . . . that ayatollah-
controlled Iran has the technology to develop a nuclear bomb . . . 'Iran has crossed the technological threshold,' Yadlin said . . . 'Iran continues to amass hundreds of kilograms of low-grade enriched uranium,' Yadlin said, and is hoping to take advantage of the dialogue with Washington to buy time to advance towards the ability to build a bomb" ("Iran Can Make A Bomb," March 9, 2009).
Iranian officials have recently stated that the nation "had successfully tested a new long-range air-to-surface missile" that could theoretically carry a nuclear warhead. "Some see [President] Obama's approach of talking with Tehran [as] a modern form of the appeasement that enabled Nazi Germany to actualize its threats." It is "a clear break with the Bush policy of viewing Iran as part of an 'axis of evil'" (ibid.).
We all need to understand the biblical background to what is now happening in the Middle East. Read our free booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy. (Sources: The Jewish Chronicle, The Times [both London], The Wall Street Journal, Arutz Sheva Israel National News.)
The European Union resorted to ambiguous, vague threats against Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, even before he took office, "to pressure him to support the 'two-state solution,' which calls for the creation of an Arab state of Palestine inside the current borders of the Jewish State" ("EU: Accept 'Two-States' or Else," Arutz Sheva Israel National News, March 30, 2009).
The foreign ministers of the Czech Republic, Germany and Luxembourg-Karel Swarzenberg, Franz-Walter Steinmeier and Jean Asselborn, respectively-all trumpeted the two-state solution. Earlier, "EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana warned that the EU would 'reevaluate its ties with Israel' if the new government does not continue down the road to the creation of a state of Palestine."
In yet another broadside earlier in March he stated, "Let me say very clearly that the way the European Union will relate to an Israeli government that is not committed to a two-state solution will be very, very different."
Although Netanyahu has spelled out several constructive ways in which he plans to assist Palestinians, he has not acceded to a two-state solution. (Source: Arutz Sheva Israel National News.)
The U.S. electrical grid has been penetrated by foreign agents who inserted software that could attack the computer-controlled system, according to national security officials ("Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated by Spies," The Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2009). While the cyberspies haven't yet damaged the system, they could certainly try to create major electrical disruptions in a war or international crisis.
Troublingly, many of the infiltrations weren't detected by the electrical companies themselves, but by American intelligence services investigating vulnerabilities in the system. They determined that the intrusions originated in Russia, China and other countries and were widespread across all regions of the country. They also discovered that other infrastructure systems such as water and sewage were at risk of attack.
"Over the past several years, we have seen cyberattacks against critical infrastructures abroad, and many of our own infrastructures are as vulnerable as their foreign counterparts," acknowledged Dennis Blair, U.S. Director of National Intelligence. One such attack last year disabled power equipment in several areas outside the United States.
In recent years the U.S. government has allocated $17 billion to protect government networks, and is now considering expanding its efforts by billions more to help protect private computer networks. A military official noted that the Pentagon had spent $100 million in recent months to repair damage from cyberattacks.
The threat to advanced nations is clearly serious. Just imagine the chaos and suffering that would result if electrical and water systems suddenly stopped functioning across large regions or entire nations. Transportation, food, water and heat would cease, and governments would be largely powerless to help. (Source: The Wall Street Journal.)
In the last few years a number of nations have been shocked by random, senseless killings. The recent Binghamton, New York, massacre of 14 happened apparently because an angry immigrant was laughed at while trying to learn English.
Hearing of such events, those familiar with Scripture must recall the prophetic words of the apostle Paul: "Know also this, that in the last days shall come dangerous times" (2 Timothy 3:1, Douay-Rheims Bible). We do live in a dangerous world, and now we have the media technology to instantly immortalize mass murderers and show the entire world the carnage.
But why such random violence? The fundamental common cause in all murders is that an unseen power is afoot on the earth-Satan the devil, a being who influences people to dangerous and destructive acts (John 8:44; 1 Peter 5:8). The Bible says that as his time draws short and the Messiah's time grows near, he will influence society to become more dangerous, hoping to cause mankind to self-destruct (Matthew 24:21-22; Revelation 12:10,12). To learn more, read our free booklet Is There Really a Devil?
A recent cover story in USA Today revealed that "the percentage of people who call themselves some type of Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation" ("Almost All Denominations Losing Ground, Survey Finds," March 10, 2009). These findings are based on a recent study by the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), which began in 1990. The article also stated that "faith is shifting, drifting or vanishing outright."
People are either freelancing religiously or dropping their faith entirely-perhaps partially due to the increasing spread of secularism. Almost all religious denominations have been adversely affected with declining numbers.
Today about 15 percent of Americans do not claim any faith-almost double the 8 percent in 1990. According to the USA Today article, this reduction in Christendom's numbers "does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of religion."
Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising, since much if not most of mainstream Christianity is based not on the teachings of the Bible, but instead on the traditions of men. To understand the principle and gain insight as to how it is being played out today, please see Mark 7:7-9. Over the last 2,000 years a culture of paganism has gradually encrusted itself onto Christendom and changed the basic teachings of the Bible almost beyond recognition.
If you would like to know what really happened to true Christianity, read our free booklet The Church Jesus Built. (Source: USA Today.)
| © 1995-2022 United
Church of God, an International Association Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. All correspondence and questions should be sent to info@gnmagazine.org. Send inquiries regarding the operation of this Web site to webmaster@gnmagazine.org. |
|
Related Information:
Table of Contents that includes "World News & Trends May 2009"
Other Articles by John Ross Schroeder
Other Articles by Jerold Aust
Origin of article "World News & Trends May 2009"
Keywords: nuclear weapons North Korea Iran Israel and Iran E.U. and Israel cyber attacks U.S. religion
European Union - Middle East: