Sunday, November 29, 2009


The Enemy Is Us

Rather than going after terrorists, Washington is attacking the CIA. By Joel Hilliker

What’s the next step in the Obama administration’s fight against Muslim extremists? Going after cia operatives.

It’s a radical step into murky territory that gives a number of advantages to avowed enemies of the United States. A strong case can be made that it could lead to former high-ranking Bush administration officials—even President Bush—being indicted by foreign governments.

This decision may have the appearance of righteousness—America atoning for its sins and so on. In truth, though, it reflects an astonishing failure to understand the seriousness of the war the nation is waging, and the nature of the enemy it faces.

As the U.S. argues over which interrogation techniques are torture, we are forced to confront the limits of American power: Possessing history’s most fearsome military does nothing to protect a nation whose leaders believe that battering and shackling its own intelligence agents will produce happier, mellower enemies and greater safety for its people.

“Death Sentence” on the War

Back in 2004, the U.S. Justice Department investigated several cia interrogations of terror detainees for possible abuses. It charged only one individual, and he was later acquitted. In August, however, Attorney General Eric Holder named a special prosecutor to reopen those cases. “A review is never going to be final anymore now,” lamented former Vice President Dick Cheney.

This action will have an obvious chilling effect on American interrogators. It means that even if they scrupulously follow the rules, someone could change the rules down the road. It means they face the axe or even jail time pending review of their actions by patently liberal officials.

To ensure that future interrogations are conducted according to the Obama administration’s exacting standards, a newly created organ called the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group will supervise them. The Wall Street Journal explained, “Interrogation techniques will be limited to those in the Army Field Manual or that are ‘non-coercive,’ which suggests more constrained than a big-city police department. … This means that the class of person who blows up skyscrapers, American embassies or the uss Cole would spend less time under a bare light bulb than a domestic robbery suspect” (August 26).

Of course, a detainee now knows exactly what to expect and how far his interrogator is allowed to go. He knows the president is looking over the interrogator’s shoulder, and that one false move would end this guy’s career. And this is supposed to make America safer.

“[I]t’s a death sentence for an effective war on terror,” wrote columnist Daniel Henninger. “It makes what’s left of the war—telephone wiretaps or monitoring money transfers—vulnerable to a steady stream of congressional and legal objection” (ibid.).

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (Ret.), who has spent decades in military intelligence, contends that the clampdown “promises to do more damage to the intelligence community than even the crippling Carter-era shenanigans—whose effects are still felt today” (New York Post, September 2).

The people the president is trying to satisfy by implementing these steps do not want to make America stronger. They believe America deserves to be knocked down a peg or three. The policy of handcuffing interrogations and handing the agents’ slimmed-down playbook to future terrorist detainees should further their goals quite nicely. To the extent that these people have a constructive goal for America’s future, it is that the country would, having atoned for its arrogance, be able to take its seat among equals in what is supposedly a happy family of nations. This would, in their view, represent an improvement in America’s standing in the world.

Eric Holder and his boss are working diligently toward this end. With deadly effectiveness, they are succeeding.

The glaring problem, though, with the idea that a prostrate America is an improved America—that submission to other nations will earn their admiration—is that those other nations are basically hungry to see the U.S. go down. It is absurd to interpret their eagerness to help President Obama dismantle American power as a sign of friendship.

And the truth is, submission to man in place of submission to God will always lead to curses (Jeremiah 17:5). That is exactly what is befalling a United States that is betting its future on the goodwill of foreign states. But you don’t need the Bible to understand that. The signs are abundant and plain.

Submitting to Foreign Courts

While visiting Berlin last spring, Attorney General Holder was asked if he would cooperate with foreign or international tribunals to prosecute Bush-era officials for how they fought the “war on terror.” His answer was essentially that Washington wouldn’t arrest anyone or hand former officials over for foreign trials, but it would fulfill any “evidentiary requests” to help build legal cases.

In other words, if a foreign or international court wants to try U.S. officials, the White House is there to supply the evidence it needs. Whatever is necessary to “clean up” America’s international reputation.

“This is an administration that is determined to conduct itself by the rule of law,” Mr. Holder said. “And to the extent that we receive lawful requests from an appropriately created court, we would obviously respond to it.” By “rule of law,” the attorney general was referring to international law—laws written by nations in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere—trumping the U.S. Constitution, the foundation of America’s national sovereignty.

You can be sure that Mr. Holder is going to start receiving those requests from foreigners eager to impose their laws on American officials. A number of foreigners are already getting busy.

For example, the United Nations “special rapporteur on torture” has said that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld should be tried for torture. “Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation” to put them on trial, Manfred Nowak told German television after President Obama’s inauguration.

A Spanish court is investigating Bush administration officials for torture of Guantánamo Bay prisoners. The case is being reviewed by the judge who successfully had Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet arrested in England in 1998.

Human rights groups in France and Germany have said they want to bring legal action against Mr. Rumsfeld. And surely there are some enterprising lawyers in the Organization of the Islamic Conference that would love to file a case or two as well.

All of these entities are being egged on by the Center for Constitutional Rights (ccr). This radical New York-based legal advocacy group, which sells “Torture Team” playing cards of Bush-era officials, “has been attempting to convince Germany, France, Spain, and other countries to file war-crime indictments against former Bush administration officials, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld,” Andrew McCarthy wrote in the National Review. “In representing America’s enemies, ccr has collaborated with many private lawyers, who also volunteered their services—several of whom are now working in the Obama Justice Department” (August 28; emphasis mine).

Yes, the new Justice Department is stacked with people who have legally represented al Qaeda and other Guantánamo detainees.

Is it any wonder, then, that they want to share evidence with foreigners eager to imprison former U.S. officials? That they want to put cia anti-terrorism operatives on the chopping block? That they want to prioritize the international legal order over America’s national law—and its clear national interests? No—it’s no wonder. Still, the speed at which they’re moving takes one’s breath away.

How do these events factor in to biblical prophecy? One way to answer that question is to see what prophecy does not say.

Invisible America

Daniel 11:40-44 could be considered the keynote prophecy of the Trumpet. And as Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry explains in The King of the South, this is an end-time prophecy about the clash of three distinct power blocs. Verse 40 discusses the first clash, which occurs when the king of the north (a German-led European empire) invades the Middle East and destroys the king of the south (led by Iran). This clash marks the beginning of World War iii.

The second major clash is mentioned in verse 44, when the king of the north, after clashing with the king of the south, is forced to turn and confront the “tidings out of the east.” This, as the Bible explains elsewhere, is the army of a great Asian bloc, led primarily by Russia and China.

Mr. Flurry spoke about this prophecy to students at Herbert W. Armstrong College in September, saying, “The most important part of this prophecy is what it doesn’t say.” Read the entire prophecy. The United States (identified in the Bible as Israel) is not mentioned once. Why?

Because at that time, America will not exist as a major political or military force in the world.

This spectacular prophecy is a forecast about the downfall of America as a superpower as much as it is about the rise and collision of the king of the north, the king of the south and the kings of the east.

Look at the Bible’s other key prophecies about major geopolitical events we are about to witness, including half of Jerusalem being forcibly seized by Muslims (Zechariah 14:2), and a destitute Israel asking Germany for military protection (Hosea 5:13). There’s an unseen but clear common denominator in all of these scenarios: the startling absence of the nation that, until recently, has been among the most active participants in these arenas: the United States.

Match those conspicuous omissions with dozens of other prophecies that foretell America’s downfall, and the truth becomes unequivocally clear: The world’s mightiest superpower is about to be conquered.

America’s will has been broken—a curse God promised to send upon our disobedient people (Leviticus 26:19). The belief that America’s war against Islamic extremism is best prosecuted by going after American intelligence agents stems from a broken will. It will hasten defeat for America.

Someday soon, war itself will be history. Scripture promises it. Swords will be beaten into plowshares; nuclear bombs will be melted into playground equipment.

But guess what: Even that time of peace won’t be brought about through negotiations and treaties, nor by gestures of goodwill. It will come only after the King of kings returns, “and in righteousness he doth judge and make war” (Revelation 19:11). He will fight with a sharp sword and rule with a rod of iron (verse 15). Once the nations submit—and only then—will He be able to teach and enforce the way of peace for all flesh.

God speed that day.

Request a free copy of The United States and Britain in Prophecy for a comprehensive scriptural explanation of America’s future.

Saturday, November 28, 2009


Israel Turns to Germany

November 26, 2009 | From

The German foreign minister’s visit to Israel highlights the growing bond between these two countries.

Germany has a “very special responsibility toward the State of Israel,” said German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle as he visited Jerusalem on Monday and Tuesday. His visit highlighted the bond growing between the two countries. Comments from both German and Israeli politicians show how this bond will only get stronger in the future—at least on the surface.

Israeli Deputy Prime minister and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that he hopes “for a far deeper and more active involvement of Germany in our region.”

“We would very much like to see them more involved and taking leading positions in everything that happens here in the Middle East,” he said.

Lieberman is not the only Israeli politician with this hope. When Spiegel Online asked the central-left Kadima floor leader Dalia Itzik, “Would you support a larger involvement of [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel in promoting a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict?” she replied: “I would ask her for deeper involvement. I would like to see her as a mediator. It is important that Angela Merkel gets more engaged in the peace process.”

Westerwelle stated that Germany was prepared to help Israel deal with the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. “Our patience has its limits,” he said. “Iran being in possession of nuclear weapons is unacceptable for Israel. It is unacceptable for the community of nations.”

“The security of Israel is non-negotiable for no one, and particularly not for us,” he said.

Merkel has done much to establish strong ties with Israel. Last year she established a program of annual joint German-Israeli cabinet meetings, the next meeting being scheduled for November 30. When Westerwelle took office last month, the first foreign minister he called was Lieberman.

But the main reason for the growing ties between Germany and Israel is the weakness of the United States. “Israel’s lack of confidence that Washington will take a sufficiently firm position on Iran is at the heart of its diplomatic initiatives in Europe,” writes American think tank Stratfor. “Israel has watched as Washington extended deadline after deadline for Iran to get serious about the negotiations. With yet another deadline approaching at the end of December for Iran to accept a nuclear fuel proposal, Israel isn’t holding its breath—but instead, is taking matters into its own hands” (November 24).

“Germany … plays a key role in the Iran imbroglio,” says Stratfor. “Israel’s recent diplomatic efforts with Germany therefore must be viewed in the context of Germany as pivot in the Iranian nuclear standoff.”

Israel is proud of the fact that its relations with Germany are not soured by events of the past. “Young Israelis are in the process of ‘dehistorizing’ their lives,” says professor of sociology at the Academic College of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Nathan Sznaider. He is proud of the fact that “this is a generation that refuses to live in the past.”

Speaking at a Holocaust memorial service in Berlin last month, Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said that “we will not deposit our security in the hands of foreigners.” But Ashkenazi is one of the few Israeli leaders who remember history. Those that scorn history are already looking to Germany for protection. Rather than worrying about German troops in Lebanon, Lieberman thanked Germany for sending them.

As the U.S. becomes increasingly impotent, watch for Israel to rely more and more on Germany. Watch for it to do the opposite of what Ashkenazi said, and completely trust its security to Germany. And watch for it to turn out badly, just as any student of history would expect it to.

For more information, see our article “Can Israel Trust Germany?

Saturday, November 21, 2009

PSALM 109 = 2009

Psalms Chapter 109 תְּהִלִּים

א לַמְנַצֵּחַ, לְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר:
אֱלֹהֵי תְהִלָּתִי, אַל-תֶּחֱרַשׁ.
1 For the Leader. A Psalm of David. {N}
O God of my praise, keep not silence;
ב כִּי פִי רָשָׁע, וּפִי-מִרְמָה--עָלַי פָּתָחוּ; דִּבְּרוּ אִתִּי, לְשׁוֹן שָׁקֶר. 2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of deceit have they opened against me; they have spoken unto me with a lying tongue.
ג וְדִבְרֵי שִׂנְאָה סְבָבוּנִי; וַיִּלָּחֲמוּנִי חִנָּם. 3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred, and fought against me without a cause.
ד תַּחַת-אַהֲבָתִי יִשְׂטְנוּנִי; וַאֲנִי תְפִלָּה. 4 In return for my love they are my adversaries; but I am all prayer.
ה וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלַי רָעָה, תַּחַת טוֹבָה; וְשִׂנְאָה, תַּחַת אַהֲבָתִי. 5 And they have laid upon me evil for good, and hatred for my love:
ו הַפְקֵד עָלָיו רָשָׁע; וְשָׂטָן, יַעֲמֹד עַל-יְמִינוֹ. 6 'Set Thou a wicked man over him; and let an adversary stand at his right hand.
ז בְּהִשָּׁפְטוֹ, יֵצֵא רָשָׁע; וּתְפִלָּתוֹ, תִּהְיֶה לַחֲטָאָה. 7 When he is judged, let him go forth condemned; and let his prayer be turned into sin.
ח יִהְיוּ-יָמָיו מְעַטִּים; פְּקֻדָּתוֹ, יִקַּח אַחֵר. 8 Let his days be few; let another take his charge.
ט יִהְיוּ-בָנָיו יְתוֹמִים; וְאִשְׁתּוֹ, אַלְמָנָה. 9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
י וְנוֹעַ יָנוּעוּ בָנָיו וְשִׁאֵלוּ; וְדָרְשׁוּ, מֵחָרְבוֹתֵיהֶם. 10 Let his children be vagabonds, and beg; and let them seek their bread out of their desolate places.
יא יְנַקֵּשׁ נוֹשֶׁה, לְכָל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ; וְיָבֹזּוּ זָרִים יְגִיעוֹ. 11 Let the creditor distrain all that he hath; and let strangers make spoil of his labour.
יב אַל-יְהִי-לוֹ, מֹשֵׁךְ חָסֶד; וְאַל-יְהִי חוֹנֵן, לִיתוֹמָיו. 12 Let there be none to extend kindness unto him; neither let there be any to be gracious unto his fatherless children.
יג יְהִי-אַחֲרִיתוֹ לְהַכְרִית; בְּדוֹר אַחֵר, יִמַּח שְׁמָם. 13 Let his posterity be cut off; in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
יד יִזָּכֵר, עֲו‍ֹן אֲבֹתָיו--אֶל-יְהוָה; וְחַטַּאת אִמּוֹ, אַל-תִּמָּח. 14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be brought to remembrance unto the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
טו יִהְיוּ נֶגֶד-יְהוָה תָּמִיד; וְיַכְרֵת מֵאֶרֶץ זִכְרָם. 15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that He may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
טז יַעַן-- אֲשֶׁר לֹא זָכַר, עֲשׂוֹת חָסֶד:
וַיִּרְדֹּף, אִישׁ-עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן--וְנִכְאֵה לֵבָב; לְמוֹתֵת.
16 Because that he remembered not to do kindness, {N}
but persecuted the poor and needy man, and the broken in heart he was ready to slay.
יז וַיֶּאֱהַב קְלָלָה, וַתְּבוֹאֵהוּ; וְלֹא-חָפֵץ בִּבְרָכָה, וַתִּרְחַק מִמֶּנּוּ. 17 Yea, he loved cursing, and it came unto him; and he delighted not in blessing, and it is far from him.
יח וַיִּלְבַּשׁ קְלָלָה, כְּמַדּוֹ: וַתָּבֹא כַמַּיִם בְּקִרְבּוֹ; וְכַשֶּׁמֶן, בְּעַצְמוֹתָיו. 18 He clothed himself also with cursing as with his raiment, and it is come into his inward parts like water, and like oil into his bones.
יט תְּהִי-לוֹ, כְּבֶגֶד יַעְטֶה; וּלְמֵזַח, תָּמִיד יַחְגְּרֶהָ. 19 Let it be unto him as the garment which he putteth on, and for the girdle wherewith he is girded continually.'
כ זֹאת פְּעֻלַּת שֹׂטְנַי, מֵאֵת יְהוָה; וְהַדֹּבְרִים רָע, עַל-נַפְשִׁי. 20 This would mine adversaries effect from the LORD, and they that speak evil against my soul.
כא וְאַתָּה, יְהוִה אֲדֹנָי-- עֲשֵׂה-אִתִּי, לְמַעַן שְׁמֶךָ;
כִּי-טוֹב חַסְדְּךָ, הַצִּילֵנִי.
21 But Thou, O GOD the Lord, deal with me for Thy name's sake; {N}
because Thy mercy is good, deliver Thou me.
כב כִּי-עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן אָנֹכִי; וְלִבִּי, חָלַל בְּקִרְבִּי. 22 For I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me.
כג כְּצֵל-כִּנְטוֹתוֹ נֶהֱלָכְתִּי; נִנְעַרְתִּי, כָּאַרְבֶּה. 23 I am gone like the shadow when it lengtheneth; I am shaken off as the locust.
כד בִּרְכַּי, כָּשְׁלוּ מִצּוֹם; וּבְשָׂרִי, כָּחַשׁ מִשָּׁמֶן. 24 My knees totter through fasting; and my flesh is lean, and hath no fatness.
כה וַאֲנִי, הָיִיתִי חֶרְפָּה לָהֶם; יִרְאוּנִי, יְנִיעוּן רֹאשָׁם. 25 I am become also a taunt unto them; when they see me, they shake their head.
כו עָזְרֵנִי, יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי; הוֹשִׁיעֵנִי כְחַסְדֶּךָ. 26 Help me, O LORD my God; O save me according to Thy mercy;
כז וְיֵדְעוּ, כִּי-יָדְךָ זֹּאת; אַתָּה יְהוָה עֲשִׂיתָהּ. 27 That they may know that this is Thy hand; that Thou, LORD, hast done it.
כח יְקַלְלוּ-הֵמָּה, וְאַתָּה תְבָרֵךְ: קָמוּ, וַיֵּבֹשׁוּ--וְעַבְדְּךָ יִשְׂמָח. 28 Let them curse, but bless Thou; when they arise, they shall be put to shame, but Thy servant shall rejoice.
כט יִלְבְּשׁוּ שׂוֹטְנַי כְּלִמָּה; וְיַעֲטוּ כַמְעִיל בָּשְׁתָּם. 29 Mine adversaries shall be clothed with confusion, and shall put on their own shame as a robe.
ל אוֹדֶה יְהוָה מְאֹד בְּפִי; וּבְתוֹךְ רַבִּים אֲהַלְלֶנּוּ. 30 I will give great thanks unto the LORD with my mouth; yea, I will praise Him among the multitude;
לא כִּי-יַעֲמֹד, לִימִין אֶבְיוֹן-- לְהוֹשִׁיעַ, מִשֹּׁפְטֵי נַפְשׁוֹ. 31 Because He standeth at the right hand of the needy, to save him from them that judge his soul. {P}

Friday, November 20, 2009



November 20, 2009 | From

Will the U.S. and its allies ever pull out of Afghanistan? By Ron Fraser

Suddenly, the phrase on many lips seems to be, it’s time for the endgame in Afghanistan. The Russians must be laughing up their sleeves. All they did when they tried to conquer Afghanistan is the same as the Brits were forced to do in a different imperial era. Their “endgame” in their individual attempts to tame Afghanistan was to simply pack up, walk away, and face failure.

Now, the United States is looking for its way out. Washington is hedging, waiting to see if the “international community” will contribute sufficient additional forces to relieve both the financial burden Afghanistan is imposing on the creaking U.S. economy and the strain it is placing on overstretched U.S. defense forces.

This week, nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen took a lead in the Afghanistan political and military quagmire, releasing a video on Wednesday showing real confidence in the hope that help is on its way to bring the campaign in Afghanistan to its endgame.

In that webcast, Rasmussen declared, “In recent days I have become more optimistic, because I’m confident that we will get new momentum. Soon things will be much clearer …. The United States and other allies and partners will make decisions on the approach to take our mission forward. I’m confident it will be a counterinsurgency approach with significantly more forces …. I expect that within a few months we will agree on a new contract between the international community and the government in Kabul that requires clear progress to meet clear benchmarks” (emphasis mine throughout).

The nato chief expressed confidence that “where conditions permit,” local security will be handed over “in a coordinated way” to Afghan forces. “This will allow us to progressively move into a supportive role.”

Rasmussen expressed appreciation for the $5 billion worth of aid promised to the Afghan government by Japan. He also noted that the European Union has approved an action plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He concluded by stating, “I will be pushing hard to make sure that allies come up with more troops and more resources” to make all this happen. “We need to sustain the new momentum in Afghanistan.”

The nato chief’s public statement was timed for release as President Obama’s trip to Asia was drawing to a close and the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was about to land in Afghanistan.

Though President Obama, during stopovers in Japan, Singapore and China, had avoided commenting on Afghanistan (which commentators correctly noted is Washington’s most pressing international policy decision), journalists pushed him to answer the question toward the end of his Asian trip. The Washington Post reported that “the topic loomed large when he sat down for interviews with four U.S. television networks …. Obama—who was interviewed by cbs, cnn, Fox News and nbc—said more firmly than ever that he is seeking an ‘endgame’ to the long-running military effort in Afghanistan …. Obama has let Afghanistan, which he deemed the ‘necessary war,’ recede into the background during stops in three foreign capitals” (November 18).

The Post noted that the president “told reporters that he would announce a decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan ‘in the next several weeks.’” There can be no doubt that the extra troop commitments announced very recently by Germany and South Korea, together with the sizable aid package from Japan, in addition to new pressure from nato, are all intended to force a decision from Washington on the extent of the additional commitment that the U.S. will make to what Anders Fogh Rasmussen has described as a “counterinsurgency” effort by allied forces.

But what was it that suddenly turned the tide in this whole Afghanistan political scenario? Well, it’s interesting to note that this rush of statements and new commitments in support of a renewed effort to counter the Taliban in Afghanistan all happened after one certain foreign minister stood up and declared war on the Taliban—Baron Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, foreign minister of Germany.

Before Guttenburg stepped up to the plate and, breaking German postwar political protocol, used the war word to describe a German military campaign for the first time in German postwar history, allies fighting in Afghanistan seemed to be at a stalemate, waiting for Washington to make a move. But Germany’s new defense minister is nothing if not a realist. He knows that the U.S. is broke and its military forces are extremely overstretched, with morale among U.S. troops in Afghanistan dropping.

The contrast between the American and the new German approach to the war in Afghanistan is stark. Guttenberg flies to Afghanistan, tells the troops it’s war, gives them a boost of 120 additional troops with the indication that the EU (under German influence of course) will send another 5,000, gets shot at by the Taliban on his departure, and the morale of German troops in Afghanistan goes through the roof. So does the morale of the German High Command in Berlin.

A few days later, nato’s chief takes to the Web, publicizing his optimism and confidence that the Afghanistan campaign “will get new momentum” and that “soon things will be much clearer” thanks to the mounting of “a counterinsurgency approach with significantly more forces.”

Rasmussen’s reference to reaching these conclusions “in recent days” surely was not pinned on any hope of impending dramatic action at that time from the U.S. This week the U.S. president was taking a low profile on Afghanistan, only stating that America might show some action on the subject “in the next several weeks.” This does not jive with the sense of imminent action being anticipated by nato chief Rasmussen.

What is not being publicized in this whole Afghanistan equation is the reality that Germany simply cannot afford to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Germany and the European Union are overly dependent on Russia for their supply of energy. Already, as winter approaches, there have been warnings yet again that gas supplies from Russia may stall during the depths of winter. Germany and the EU desperately need to secure alternative supplies of oil and gas. The Middle East is the most obvious alternative to Russia. Germany has maneuvered to have its navy deployed in the Mediterranean and in the waters off the Persian Gulf, both crucial seaways giving access via Suez in the north and the Gulf of Oman in the south to Middle East oil.

Germany needs to secure the eastern perimeter of the oil “golden triangle,” which embraces Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. That perimeter is the eastern border of Iran abutting Afghanistan. That is why Germany has made sure of its deployment in the northwestern sector of Afghanistan. It is Germany’s need for ongoing dependable sources of energy that requires it to secure that triangle of black gold resources.

Germany realizes that it has almost played the U.S. to the point of exhaustion in fighting wars to secure for it the territory it needs to fulfill the global ambitions of its elites.

There will be an endgame for the war in Afghanistan! That endgame, for Germany, will simply be when it takes charge of the forces securing Afghanistan and fulfills the biblical prophecy, mounting a whirlwind attack on Iran, then taking over the oil “golden triangle” in the Middle East (Daniel 11:40).

Tuesday, November 10, 2009


The Electromagnetic Threat – by Jamie Glazov

Posted By Jamie Glazov On November 10, 2009 @ 12:06 am In FrontPage


FrontPage Interview’s guest today is Hadi T. Ardestani, a Nuclear Waste Management Expert and a Nuclear Issues Specialist in the Marze Por Gohar Party [1] (MPG), an Iranian opposition party seeking the establishment of a secular republic in Iran.

FP: Hadi T. Ardestani, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about the Electromagnetic (EMP) threat. Many people are not really that familiar with it. Give us the definition and tell us what it is all about.

Ardestani: Thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk about one of the more significant but least discussed national security threats: EMP.

EMP comes from the words “Electromagnetic Pulse,” which occurs when a high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons, in turn, produce high-energy free electrons by “compton scattering” at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently.

There are three main types of explosions to be considered on the effects of the electromagnetic pulse. These are near-surface bursts, medium-altitude bursts, and high-altitude bursts. Near-surface bursts are those at altitudes up to 1.2 miles, medium-altitude bursts range from 1.2 miles to 19 miles, and high-altitude bursts are those above 19 miles. These altitudes are only rough guidelines.

FP: Tell us about the effects of EMP.

Ardestani: Since EMP is electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of light, all of the affected area could possibly be affected almost simultaneously. With such a possible threat, it is important to consider what may be affected. Because of the intense electromagnetic fields (about 10 kV/m) and wide area of coverage, the EMP can induce large voltages and currents in power lines, communication cables, radio towers, and other long conductors serving a facility.

Some other notable collectors of EMP include railroad tracks, large antennas, pipes, cables, wires in buildings, and metal fencing. Although materials underground are partially shielded by the ground, they are still collectors, and these collectors can deliver the EMP energy to a larger facility. This produces surges that can destroy the connected device, such as power generators or long distance telephone systems. An EMP could destroy many services needed to survive a war.

It is also important to realize how vulnerable the military is to EMP. “Military systems often use the most sophisticated and therefore most vulnerable, electronics available, and many of the systems that must operate during a nuclear war cannot tolerate the temporary disturbances that EMP may induce.” Furthermore, many military duties require information to be communicated over long distances. This type of communication requires external antennas, which are extremely susceptible to EMP. Also, some military duties require information-gathering techniques. Many of these techniques use electronic devices connected directly to antennas or radar. Although the devices may be inside shielded buildings, the antennas bring the EMP inside, to the electronics.

In conclusion, the immediate effects of EMP are disruption of, and damage to, electronic systems and electrical infrastructure. EMP is not reported in scientific literature to have direct effect on people in the parameter range of present interest. But its volatile state, a small amount of nuclear weaponry – potentially just one weapon – can produce a catastrophic impact on our society. This makes EMP a candidate to be used in a massive terrorist attack.

Here is a possible scenario according to Mr. T. Kennedy:

“Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Gamma rays from the explosion, through the ‘Compton Effect,’ generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans”.

You can easily imagine what this will do to aircraft in flight and the damage to all modes of transportation as well.

FP: As the Nuclear Committee Chairman of MPG, to what extent do you think Iran is capable of launching an EMP attack?

Ardestani: First, as I have made clear in many of my statements, I totally do not believe the idea that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program is or could be and/or may change into a “peaceful and civilian” program.

They certainly will use any tools they can possibly use to extend and establish the Islamic Republic throughout the world. This is their goal as indicated in their constitution which has clearly assigned the duty of global Jihad to the Revolutionary guards and the military. This is also what they constantly declare all the time in their local media.

I confirm that scientifically they have enough power to make an EMP attack. There is no guarantee that they will stop at that and won’t attempt conventional nuclear attacks. This Islamic government has not displayed any moral or ethic discipline towards anyone and has shown zero interest in engaging anybody on any level.

The proof is here: look at the recent massacre on the streets of Iran after the presidential election. This Islamic government shows no reservations about torture and remorselessly murders its own people and even more their own colleagues. When given a rope, the regime has used it to hang Iranians; when given stones they have stoned people; when given guns, they have executed dissidents. What do you think the Islamic Regime will do were it to acquire nuclear weapons?

The Islamic Republic of Iran has developed a modern missile program and has tested their missiles in the Caspian Sea twice in the last eight years, launching ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP.

FP: What does the latest evidence tell us about Iran’s capabilities?

Ardestani: According to the latest figures on Iran’s nuclear progress released by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium continues to grow, as does the capacity of the Natanz enrichment plant, where 8,000 gas centrifuges are currently installed.

Just a few weeks ago, a new enrichment plant near the city of Qum was announced as it had become clear that its existence had been discovered and was about to be exposed. New plants and facilities are being discovered in Iran every few months. Based on the IAEA’s figures, I would say that Iran’s stockpile should be sufficient to fuel two nuclear weapons by the end of this year if the material were further processed to weapons-grade.

Furthermore, the Obama administration announced recently that it will scrap plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe put forward by former President George W. Bush. Iran’s missile capability appears to be a major factor in this shift. According to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Iran’s short and medium range missiles are “developing more rapidly than previously projected,” requiring a missile shield that relies on existing technology and can be put in place quickly.

In this context, it is crucial to understand both the current status of Iran’s missile arsenal, and how easily Iran could improve the range and accuracy of this arsenal. As a result, I believe that Iran could easily carry out an EMP attack.

FP: Which country is most threatened if Iran acquires nuclear weapons capability and perpetrates an EMP attack?

Ardestani: The first country to be put into clear and present danger by the acquisition of nuclear weapons and an EMP attack by the Islamic Theocracy in Iran is Israel – and by default the United States – in addition to all the other countries in the region.

FP: Have any actions been taken in this regard around the world?

Ardestani: Certainly. In September 2009 we had a national conference on the EMP threat in Niagra Falls, New York held by the EMPACT America organization.

FP: What is EMPACT?

Ardestani: EMPACT stands for “EMP-Act.” EMPACT America is a bipartisan, non-profit organization for citizens concerned about protecting the American People from a nuclear or natural electromagnetic pulse (EMP) catastrophe. Their web site is

FP: Who were some of the speakers?

Ardestani: There were a whole range of highly qualified technical experts, scientists, political leaders and military authorities covering the issue from various angles. Notably I could name: former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, former Arkansas Governor Mike Hukabee, William Forstchen, Frank Gaffney, Larry Greenfield, Brigitte Gabriel, Clifford May, Roozbeh Farahanipour, Dr. V. Pry president of EMPACT America, Avi Schnurr and many others.

FP: What was the MPG’s role in that conference?

Ardestani: Roozbeh Farahanipour, on behalf of the MPG Party, presented the Islamic Republic’s angle of this threat by discussing the nature, goals and capabilities of the regime. As an opposition party consisting mainly of younger generation Iranians, we have not only experienced first hand the nature of the regime, but have many concerned sources within Iranian institutions that convey their fears and concerns to us regularly.

FP: How can people educate themselves about EMP?

Ardestani: There is a lot of material on EMP on the internet which anybody can access and get familiar with. There are, of course, numerous academic and scientific sources which more technically educated people can use for research.

FP: What can concerned citizens do?

Ardestani: First of all, people should be aware of the concept of the threat and the fact that in today’s world numerous enemies with EMP capabilities exist and more are relentlessly pursuing the technology.

Second, people should learn to relate major political, ideological and strategic developments in the world with the major technological and military capabilities at the disposal of forces and governments seeking the destruction of Western civilization and culture of freedom. Active and aggressive entities such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, North Korea and many others are prime candidates who have either acquired the EMP technology, are close to acquiring it or can be equipped with it by their more powerful patrons in short order.

People should also follow up with the activities of EMPACT through [2] and keep themselves up to date.

FP: Hadi T. Ardestani, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Blog Archive