Is there a threat to Israel from the United States under Barak Obama? What is his attitude toward Iran? Has America ruled out military action in Iran?

Armageddon? - Comment on 2009 May 11

Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period
Home > Comments > 2009 > Comment on 2009 May 11

2009 May 11
How Obama's America Might Threaten Israel. Determined fecklessness on Iran could lead to nuclear war. Read more:

I read the above headline today and as it again concerned the subject I have been dealing with in the past I decided to read the whole article. I came to the conclusion that the writer of that article had been caught in a net that was laid out for him and for the rest of the world. The policy he dealt with was so laid out that an impression should arise in the whole world that the Obama administration would not take military action in case Iran would become aggressive.

The writer looks back at the past of Barak Obama and his connections with anti-Semitic personalities and propagandists for terrorism. Then he states that Obama, during his campaign for office, either distanced himself from or repudiated the ideas of such associates, yet got around to doing so only when the political exigencies of his candidacy left him no prudential alternative.

The writer's belief that America is not going to take military action against Iran is expressed by statements like "determined fecklessness on Iran" and "although it is certain that Mr. Obama has removed American military action from the table, it is difficult to tell whether he still thinks that he can talk Iran into giving up its nuclear progam" and "but instead of going on to support military action, they (the Obama administration) have fallen back on the position that we can 'live with' a nuclear Iran" and "but to say it again, with American military action ruled out, the only hope is that such action - which could at the very least head off the otherwise virtually certain prospect of a nuclear war - will be taken by Israel" and "If there is a threat to Israel coming from Mr. Obama, it is that, having eschewed the use of force by the United States, he will follow through on his vice president's declaration that Israel would be 'ill advised' to attack the Iranian nuclear sites and will prevent them from doing the job themselves."

Another statement in his article is: "But what surely does rise to the level of a threat is American policy toward Iran. In making the ridiculous boast during his presidential campaign that he could talk Iran into giving up its quest for nuclear weapons (and the missiles to deliver them), Mr. Obama was careful to add that the military option remained available in case all else failed. But everyone, and especially the Iranians and the Israelis, had to know that this was pro forma, and that if elected Mr. Obama would pursue the same carrot-and-stick approach of the Europeans who had been negotiating with Iran for the past five years."

So the gist of the article is that the American government is failing to pursue appropriate policy.

I now want to repeat a statement that I read on 7th November 2008 and that lets the whole situation appear in a much better light:

"The expected antichrist is a personality that steps out of the limits of the natural; he is an extraordinary talented man whose special strength is his urbaneness, as he comes across as very self-confident especially in face to face situations with men who are responsible for the welfare of the people. And that is why he will be successful and the supremacy that he is striving for will be granted to him, it will be assumed that drastic changes for the best of the general public are to be expected to come through him. And they all will acknowledge him; he will make use of this preferential position for measures of all kinds."

It is "the supremacy that he is striving for" that will be the key to understand what is going on.

He has become the most powerful human being on earth. He was striving for the supremacy in his country and this was granted to him. He is now the leader of the strongest nation but that is only a step. The next step is to become the leader of all people on earth. And the final step is to then use this support of nearly all people on earth to also then be the leader of everything that exists and that includes God.

And on the way to achieve this he will do whatever suits his real aim. If he supports Israel or Iran will simply depend on how it fits in with his priority. If the world opinion turns against Iran because of its aggressiveness and a defeat of this country makes him the saviour of the world then he would use the situation to do what furthers his aim.

So the present aim might be to lure Iran and the rest of the world into thinking that Iran's striving for regional predominance will remain unchallenged.

And it seems that he is succeeding.

Now let us assume that this is what is going to happen, what then will Russia and China do, being caught by surprise as they also assumed that Iran would be left unchecked? Will they then also be drawn into that area to make good their lost influence? Will they then be drawn to the Middle East, may be to Armageddon?


For an overview of this website and for access to the individual webpages go to:
Site Map

The web address of this webpage is: