Signs Of The Times (Part 127 of 0)

Signs of the Times

Iran and Russia, Partners Again

Given the History of the two nations, it is significant to note that once again Russia and Iran are cooperating on both an eco­nomic and military level

After the fall of the Shah of Iran, the Soviet Union worked closely with that country until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan m the early 1980’s Today, however, relations have warmed again between the two coun­tries even as Iran has fallen from favor with the United States

Iran — USA

In June, 1996 a bomb ripped through the Khobar Towers near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia The blast took the lives of 19 US airmen, sheared off an outer wall of Building 131 and left a smoking crater 85 feet across and 35 feet deep The result-mg shock wave blew in windows and pulverized reinforced concrete, creating a blizzard of slashing, crushing projectiles Windows in several other buildings, some half a mile away, were also shattered The ensuing investigation pointed to Iran as the instigating nation As a result, the United States is currently consider-mg retaliatory action against Iran.

An article appearing in the Jorda­nian weekly Albllad reported “A western diplomatic source in Amman said that the U S has begun to make contacts with its western allies in or­der to lay a military blow on Iran The source said that England and Ger­many supported the American move while France asked for additional de­tails in order to examine the matter including the results of the investiga­tion of the explosion The source said that immediately after the investiga­tion, the U S will convene the U N Security Council m order to reach a decision which will enable it to use force against Iran on a revenge attack for the explosion The source said that the U S is developing an international coalition against Iran and it has begun to re-deploy 300,000 sol­diers in the Gulf area in addition to the over 2,000 jets in order to be ready for a military clash with Iran which is almost certain, in the opinion of the source”

The possibility of retaliatory ac­tion has been spoken of extensively in the global press. For example, the London Sunday Times reports: “America is consulting its allies in Europe and the Middle East about plans for tough retaliatory action — including cruise missile strikes — against Iran over its alleged involvement in the bombing of an American barrack in Saudi Arabia in which 25 American troops were killed. The Pentagon has drawn up an extensive ‘hit list’ that includes terrorist train­ing camps, nuclear and biological weapons factories, missile sites and oil factories. The plan calls for the use of cruise missiles launched from air­craft carriers stationed in the Gulf or stealth fighters operating from a base in Saudi Arabia.”

Iran – Russia

As relations between the USA and Iran sour, the Iranian-Russian alliance thrives. Reuters reports that in early December, 1996, Russia signed an $800 million deal with Iran  to complete a nuclear power plant in the southern Iranian port of Bushehr This was done in the face of U.S. objections that Tehran might use the technology to develop nuclear arms.

Iran recently took delivery of a Russian-built submarine, the last of three Russian submarines purchased under an Iranian program to modernize its naval forces. The Kilo-class diesel boat is under tow in the Mediterranean, preparing for passage through the Suez Canal. And the BBC reports “Ali Akbar Velayati (Iranian Foreign Minister) and Yevgeny Primakov (his Russian counterpart) discussed ways to boost ties after their countries this month agreed to expand economic cooperation.”

Following are some further ex­amples extracted from the internet with the source noted after each item:

  • Iran has received Russian cooperation so they can purchase Chinese Xian FB-7 strike aircraft, the Shenyang F-8IIM and Chengdu F-7 fighters, as part of a multi-billion dollar arms deal with Beijing. The Rus­sian cooperation is required so that the F-8IIM can be purchased and developed for export and defense (Flight International).
  • Iran is developing a long-range missile able to reach the whole of Is­rael and capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The Iranian missile is a joint development with Russian sci­entists of the outdated Soviet SS-4 Sandal missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers (Deutsche Press).
  • Iran is now developing missiles based on the Russian Scud and North Korean Nadong systems with a range of 5,500 km (Reuters).
  • Iran is involved in secret nego­tiations with Russia for the purchase of an aircraft carrier for its navy. Quoting western intelligence sources the negotiations centered on a Kiev class carrier (Deutsche Press).

Latter-day prophecies

Scriptures concerning the latter days indicate Iran and Russia will be cooperating together. “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him, Persia (Iran), Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet” (Ezek 38:2,5 NKJV). Today, those prophecies are being real­ized with the cooperative action of Iran and Russia. As well, Russia has made moves recently to increase her military might: In early January, Russian President Boris Yeltsin issued a decree to call up to 5,000 officers in the reserves for military service during 1997-1999. The President ordered to annually recruit up to 15,000 of those who have graduated from universities and institutes or have been trained at military departments in the universities and institutes but who have not been drafted.

Not only are these nations cooperating together as prophesied by the latter-day prophets, the major aggressor has taken steps to increase its army Will the Lord’s return come quickly? The signs of the latter days indicate it will.

As we look forward to a new year, a great challenge in the Middle East is maintaining the peace process. The way ahead is complicated by the different agendas being pursued by leaders in the area — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and King Hussein of Jordan. Further compli­cating matters are the agendas of op­position groups challenging each of the three leaders.

In spite of all the difficulties, there have been gains already realized from the peace process We examine some of these before considering the chal­lenge that lies ahead. As we do so, it becomes strikingly apparent that true peace can only be obtained through divine intervention — an intervention that may or may not transpire in the new year.

The gains

In the last few months, progress has been made in at least three areas: *Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has pronounced a relaxation in policy with Syria; * Israel and Jordan have reached trade accords; * Israel and Niger have renewed diplomatic rela­tions.

*Recent articles in the Israeli news­paper Ha ‘aretz report Netanyahu felt there were pronounced indications of a relaxation of tensions with Syria on the Golan Heights. Netanyahu re­fused to detail the signs, but noted this does not exempt Israel from carefully safeguarding its security. Netanyahu said Israel is investigating the possi­bility of renewing talks with Syria.

“The relations with Syria have been characterized by an artificial increase of tension through state­ments. A month and a half ago the tension reached its peak, and since, we have seen a relaxation.”

The Prime Minister commented on Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai’s statement that Israeli intelligence officials had recom­mended a reinforcement of forces in the north. “The Defense Minister was commenting on a period that was dur­ing the peak of tension. The security establishment has never recommended an extensive operation or to bring large forces to the Golan Heights.”

*On December 4, 1996, Israel and Jordan signed an agreement enabling the direct passage of commercial shipments between the two countries. Prior to this agreement, commercial goods passing between Israel and Jor­dan had to be transferred between shipping vehicles at border crossings.

*The Government of Israel and the Government of the Republic of Niger have decided to renew diplomatic ties. The agreement signed in No­vember by Foreign Minister David Levy and Foreign Minister Andre Salifou of Niger allows for coopera­tion between the two nations. Although outside the scope of the peace initiative, Niger has a population of almost 9 million, 85% of them Mos­lem, and is strategically located di­rectly south of Libya

The challenges

As is the case with most political situations, challenges and threats usually emanate from within This is the case for Netanyahu.

He is attempting to govern Israel through a coalition government consisting of six different political parties As well, Netanyahu has been attacked from the right wing of his own political party for agreeing to meet with Arafat and shaking hands with him Complicating Netanyahu’s domestic problems further are his planned budget cuts, which pit mem­bers of his cabinet against each other and may lead to a cabinet fight One of Netanyahu’s coalition partners, B’Aliyah leader Natan Sharanky, wants to see money redirected to the absorption of immigrants from the former Soviet Union rather than cut the budget.

If Netanyahu’s problems are in the future, those of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat are very much in the present The sharp limitation on Palestinians coming to work in Israel has cost Arafat hundreds of millions of dollars the Palestinian Authority (PA) was due to receive from Israel as the PA’s share of taxes paid by those workers A huge unemployment problem has also been created Re­stricted entrance to Israel also creates communication problems between the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza as Israel must be entered to get from one to the other Many Palestinian businesses and offices located in East Jerusalem are being seriously hurt by the limitation m movement Arafat also faces serious internal op­position On the right is Hamas and to the left is the Palestinian non-governmental organization.

Watching the Israeli-Palestinian interplay with increasing anxiety is King Hussein of Jordan Since his peace treaty with Israel m October, 1994, the King has taken the lead to expand the peace process As well, Hussein took the lead at the June Arab summit in Cairo All leaders at this conference endorsed the peace pro­cess with Israel provided it would be based on the principle of land for peace The problem for the King, however, will be if Netanyahu does not pursue a land-for-peace policy but reverts to the old Likud policy of building settlements m the West bank and Gaza Israel may also begin a major program of land confiscation in Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem.

There are so many factors playing on the Middle East peace initiative, it is a wonder the process has pro­ceeded this far As we look ahead to the new year, we realize any peace in the Middle East is merely temporary — one influenced by economics, po­litical alliances, or other volatile cata­lysts A true peace will only occur once the Kingdom is established, let us pray that day may come quickly.

It is a year and a half since the six-day Israeli Arab war was terminated by a cease fire agreement This was to be followed by negotiations to work out a peaceful solution to the hostilities in the Middle East News reporters and observers in the area state that it is difficult to believe that the war ever ended.

Along the border between Israel and Jordan, south of the Sea of Galilee, most of the Jordanian farmers have moved out and vacated their land On the other side of the line the Israeli farm families go to bed in bomb shelters every night Also across other Jordan River frontiers ma­chine gun and artillery duels have occurred Across the Suez Canal Israeli and Egyptian soldiers face each other This situation brings about continual skirmish es between the two armies, each side blaming the other Although Israel has been able to retain its conquered land it has been costly Since the cease fire was declared the number of Israeli killed in border fighting has been more than one third of the number killed in the six-day war.

In addition to these encounters, Israel has more ominous threats from beyond its borders Soviet aims have been sent to Egypt to replace armaments lost in the war and troops have been deployed to strengthen defensive lines between Cairo and the canal Israel has made charges that Soviet naval pilots are making reconnaissance flights in bombers based in Cairo Recently the Russians have made demands that Israel open the passage for ships through the Suez Canal.

During this period of actual and threatened warlike acts, peace negotiations are still being discussed, but with little if any progress The principal reason for the failure is the difference in demands of the various parties regarding the terms of a peaceful settlement The United Nations Security Council resolution of No ember 1967 called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territories to be followed by the conclusion of peace with secure and recognized frontiers The Israeli did not agree with the resolution but maintained that they would negotiate frontiers first and then withdraw if necessary The Russian attitude is “first let Israel move out of the occupied areas and then we will talk peace ” While there is still hope of a peaceful settlement, many see two divergent viewpoints which can­not be reconciled.

The policy pursued by the Soviets relating to the Middle East is interesting and worth analyzing as it does indicate a change in their aims in recent years. Following the 1967 Israel-Arab war Rus­sia withdrew her ambassador to Israel and closed down the embassy in Tel Aviv. For the first time in 20 years all diplo­matic contact between Moscow and Jeru­salem has been cut off. This is brought about principally by a change in policy of the Soviets toward the Middle East. Up to 1967 Russia was content with securing the Arab countries as strategic allies. They drew support from these countries by arming them and helping to sustain them economically. They are now foster­ing plans of establishing their own bases at various points. Although they have not actually established their own naval or air bases, Russia has begun to equip supply centers with enormous volumes of ma­terial. These have been set up at Alexandria and Port Said in Egypt; Latakia in Syria and Mers-el-Kebir in Algeria. All of these are located on the Mediterranean Sea.

The overall outlook and plan of the Soviets is clearly discernible in view of current events. It is obvious their ultimate goal is to enlarge their sphere of influ­ence, ideology and economics over the na­tions of Europe, Asia and Africa.

The Soviet bloc of eastern Europe consists of Russia and her satellite nations of Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Ru­mania. They are united militarily and eco­nomically by the Warsaw Pact. Although this pact is supposedly for the material assistance and strength of all these na­tions it is in reality designed for increas­ing the influence and control of Russia. This was definitely pointed out in the recent treatment of Czechoslovakia. From this it became evident that the satellite nations do not have independence con­cerning their own economics and achieve­ments. In Europe the bloc is a completed unit, in the Middle East it is still being formed. The principal strength in the de­velopment in the Middle East lies in the bases along the Mediterranean. But this strength is greatly increased by the Rus­sian influence in Cairo, Damascus, Bag­dad and other leading cities of the Arab nations, the result of the tremendous mili­tary and economic aid given by Russia to the Arabs.

In a recent article a well known analyst of foreign affairs made the following interesting comments, “For the U.S.S.R., Israel represents the broken link in the chain of Middle East bases. It is now more than ever in the Soviet interest to eradicate this troublesome link”. He fur­ther stated, “The key to postwar months does not really lie in the artillery battles across the Jordan River or the Suez Canal. It lies in the confrontation between Is­rael and the U.S.S.R.”

While this writer together with other authors and commentators, also politicians and world leaders view these events as a struggle for supremacy between na­tions, their realization of a conflict be­tween Russia and Israel is certainly in accord with Bible prophecy. In Ezekiel 38 these events are forecast in terms that apply to the present developments in Is­rael. “Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto God, Thus saith the Lord God; In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it? And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them rid­ing upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army: And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, 0 Gog, before their eyes”.

In the predawn hours of August 21, the Russian army, assisted by four satel­lite collaborators, invaded the nation of Czechoslovakia. This action was a shock and a cause for alarm to most nations of the world. The realization of the threat of widespread war because of this move brought panic and fear to leaders and populace of many countries. The tensions of the situation has eased by Czechoslovakia’s remaining under the Soviet bloc occupation.

Why did Russia do it? To get an an­swer to this question an understanding is required of the background, the alliances and the current ambitions of the Czech nation, and the feeling of the leaders in the Kremlin toward it.

Since 1948 Czechoslovakia has been a unitary socialist republic composed of two Slav nations, the Czechs and the Slovaks. For many years prior it had been the Republic of Czechoslovakia. In 1938 Chancellor Hitler of Nazi Germany stirred up disaffection among the German-speaking people of the area known as Sudetenland, and demanded its secession from Czechoslovakia. To avert war the western powers signed what is known as the Munich pact whereby they agreed to the secession with a guarantee of peace by Hitler. Instead of establishing peace this agreement led to further ag­gression by the Nazis which resulted in World War II. After the conclusion of the war and the realignment of the spheres of influence of the power nations, Czechoslovakia found itself as a member of the Soviet orbit.

All satellite nations of the Soviet group were united by the Warsaw Treaty Orga­nization, also known as the Warsaw Pact. It was created in 1956 as a 20-year mutual defense alliance by Albania, Bul­garia, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Rumania and U.S.S.R. It provided for unified military command with headquarters in Moscow. If one member is attacked the others will aid with all necessary steps. There is also a Political Consultative Committe and one for advancement of economic cooperation.

One important truth has become evi­dent to the world by the Russian inva­sion of Czechoslovakia. Even with the strong military and economic alliance the Soviet rulers cannot command the loyalty of the people they presume to lead. Russia must maintain the leadership of her satellites in order to preserve and increase her position. The location and ambition of the Czech nation are focal points of the danger of threatened revolt.

A look at the map shows Czechoslovakia’s position in central Europe. It is bounded on the north, east and south by East Germany, Poland and Hungary, all Soviet allied nations. But on the west it borders West Germany, an adversary of Russia, thereby acting as a buffer between Soviet territory and West Germany. It is the expressed opinion of experts that the power in the Kremlin still fears the potential strength of western Europe. It is imperative to Russia that she maintains an allied chain of nations between herself and the west.

From the standpoint of economics, 70% of the Czech foreign trade is with the Soviet bloc countries. Politically and sociologically it is the purpose of the Soviets to keep all nations in the pact on a unified basis. The Czech nation had plans which did not coincide with the master plan of the Soviets.

Alexander Dubcek, the Chairman of the Czech Communist Party, in coopera­tion with members of the Czech govern­ment, attempted to establish a liberal communism. The important thing pointed out by observers was that Dubcek and those who backed him were trying to find a way to make Communism work in Czechoslovakia, not to discard it entirely. The plans of Dubcek at first were not questioned by the Soviet leaders. He was a dedicated Communist, a long-time resi­dent of the Soviet Union. Soon after he took over in January of this year, he started to initiate freedoms which the Russian leaders have never been able to tolerate. The new freedoms were far reaching. The role of the secret police was diminished, citizens were given per­mission to travel and censorship was done away with.

Another aim was a desire to break away from the Soviet trade ties. The Czechs were anxious to negotiate trade agreements with nations of the free world. In the hope of reviving their export trade they sought huge credits, not only from Russia, but also from western nations.

The Kremlin feared that the Czech leaders were demanding a different kind of Communism which, if successful, might spread to the entire Communistic world. They did not want the Czechs to come any closer to the west economically and thereby soften the protective barrier they represent between the Soviets and the west.

Russia felt that the only way to elimi­nate these dangers was to put a stop to the plans. When the Czechs would not comply the only means left was force. So on August 21 Soviet and satellite forces invaded and occupied the country.

Even though the Czechs were forced to submit to the rulings of the Kremlin, their land is still occupied. To work out an agreement Dubcek was summoned to Moscow for a meeting with the full party Central Committee. At the meting the Soviet leaders called for return to normali­zation of the Czechs. Two weeks later the Soviets were insisting on faster applica­tion of the demand, stating that the Czechs did not have a correct understand­ing of the process of normalization.

The Czech crisis has brought about much concern among the political lead­ers cf the other nations of the world. Based on what has taken place they won­der what the outcome will be concerning the existing attempt to relax the East-West relationship, the continuance of NATO forces in Europe, the effect on peace negotiations relating to the Viet Nam war, and further discussions of the United States and Russia on a deterrent of nuclear warfare.

To those who look at the crisis from a prophetic viewpoint we are also con­cerned, but not as the nations who won­der as to the outcome. Although the de­tails and sequence of events are not fully revealed we do know that the Russian organization will continue to cause trouble and worry until its final move, the inva­sion of Israel. We know that all the present disturbances are a means to the end. As we see these events take place the words of Christ are brought to mind: But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass. . . . When ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand”. (Luke 21:9,31)