WebToday Exclusive: DID THE U.S. INVADE IRAQ TO KEEP IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUKES?- Category:Christian_Conservative_News
News Analysis by Lawrence J. Joyce
WebToday Exclusive: DID THE U.S. INVADE IRAQ TO KEEP IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUKES?
Note: This is a follow-up article to an article posted on 888WebToday.com on Wed., Oct. 24th of 2012 regarding Iran’s nuclear program (http://888webtoday.com/articles/viewnews.cgi?id=EFVEpAZFAZJTvIODrR), which was also made into a YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYmzFufibmE). In writing these articles this author consulted Wikipedia and the report of the EMP Threat Commission, as well as other sources cited in the articles, for much of the information shared herein.
Nov. 19, 2012. While President George W. Bush was busy building support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the steady drumbeat from both him and from his opposition was that the invasion was all about seizing alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But perhaps the real reason we invaded Iraq was based more on our relations with Iran than on our relations with Iraq.
As was discussed in an article by this author that was posted on 888WebToday.com on October 24, 2012, there was an article which appeared in the New York Times on January 17th of 2000, one which pointed out that C.I.A. Director George Tenet briefed then-President Clinton on the C.I.A.’s new assessment regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. This new assessment was that even back then, Iran might have already possessed enough fissile material to make a nuclear weapon. This new capability of Iran would be based not on Iran’s ability at that time to produce the material by itself, but rather would be based on Iran’s ability to buy all it would need to make a bomb on the black market.
The article, which is available for free in the New York Times archives (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/17/world/cia-tells-clinton-an-iranian-a-bomb-can-t-be-ruled-out.html?scp=2&sq=iran&st=nyt&pagewanted=1 ), goes on to cite nuclear analyst David Albright for the belief that Iran was engaged in an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons at least in part in response to the late Saddam Hussein’s attempt to obtain nuclear weapons for Iraq. If, as the article suggests, this was a widely-held view at the time in American intelligence circles, it leads to the following question: Was the eventual U.S. invasion of Iraq and ouster of Saddam Hussein based at least in part on a desire to placate Teheran, and to convince the Iranian government not to develop nuclear weapons of its own? For if Saddam Hussein were to be ousted, then certainly Iran would never have a nuclear-armed Saddam to worry about. Did this line of reasoning then lead us to conclude that we should oust Saddam to prevent the rise of a nuclear Iran?
Such a motivation, if in fact it were true, would be a close cousin of the appeasement which Neville Chamberlain tried to use on Hitler at Munich. Unfortunately, the possibility that this may in fact have been our principal motive for invading Iraq does ring true, however, for the following reasons:
1.) The argument that we were forced to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein supposedly possessed weapons of mass destruction is weak, even if Saddam did have such weapons. Bear in mind, after all, that during the Cuban Missile Crisis the Soviet Union possessed an estimated 300 nuclear warheads, yet we saw no need to invade the U.S.S.R. and topple Khrushchev. What supposedly, then, could have been so compelling about a need to topple Saddam?
Granted, if Saddam had been a religious fanatic, perhaps the argument to invade would have been stronger, for such weapons in the hands of a fanatic would be a frightening thought. But of all the Arab leaders of modern times, Saddam was perhaps the least religious of all, someone who was very pragmatic, and who would not be so foolish as to risk inviting the nuclear fury of the U.S. arsenal against his country. He could be dissuaded from attacking us every bit as much as Khrushchev was.
2.) Where were all those massive stockpiles of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, anyway? Did they get smuggled out of Iraq before the invasion? Or did they never really exist, after all?
If they ever really did exist and somehow got smuggled out of Iraq, where are they now? And why is it suddenly no longer important to track them down wherever they are so that we can invade the other country where they are located now in order to destroy them? The silence regarding these questions is deafening, and lends itself to the possible conclusion that we had never even thought it important to go after any such weapons in the first place.
3.) Invading Iraq, which has never been a nuclear-armed state, would have been a good way to disguise weakness. Right after George W. Bush took office, a Red Chinese fighter plane crashed into a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft out over the sea. Beijing claimed those waters as its territory; the U.S. never recognized that claim. Our plane was forced to land in the Peoples Republic of China; our crew was held captive and the plane was thoroughly inspected as a prize intelligence coup by the Communists. Then, immediately following the collision, our surveillance flights over all waters claimed by Red China were suspended, even those nowhere near the collision, and even though we still did not recognize Red China’s claim to any of those waters. And although W.’s Administration later said that our surveillance flights had resumed, the official announcement did not specify which flights had been resumed. The flights where the collision took place were over the South China Sea, an area of greater military sensitivity than the other surveillance areas, such as the East China Sea. In any real attempt to stand up to Beijing it would have been of the utmost importance to resume the flights over any area which we deemed to be international waters, especially the South China Sea. This is particularly the case because of the way the Communists humiliated us by holding our crew captive and by openly and brazenly inspecting our surveillance plane.
Bear in mind that we had even fought the War of 1812 in large part over the principle of freedom of navigation in international waters, and that principle was supposed to have been vindicated and settled now since the conclusion of that war nearly 200 years. Also, Ronald Reagan invoked this principle when he stood up to Muamaar Gaddafi in the Gulf of Sidra. But the lack of specificity from W.’s Administration that we had in fact resumed flights over the South China Sea looks suspiciously like we were backing down from a long-held and cherished principle. And behind the scenes, governments around the world would have been wondering about that.
Although Western Civilization does maintain at least some Christian principles (though far less so than it did 50 years ago), it has long been the case that Western governments have been unable to apply Biblical principles of governing to government decision making. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s debacle at Munich, in which he caved in to the demands of Hitler, is one such example of a failure to follow Biblical guidance. Chamberlain concluded that if he gave Hitler all he was asking for at Munich that this would end the tension between them peacefully. For the alternative was war, and it would be unreasonable for Hitler to desire war. Chamberlain simply assumed that Hitler was operating on the basis of a basically reasonable, benign (though misguided) view of Germany’s needs. This goes hand-in-hand with much of the conventional wisdom of the entire 20th Century itself, which posited that man is inherently good. A worldview such as that has trouble following the old adage: “Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.” For a worldview which assumes that man is basically good can easily lead one to conclude that preparations for the worst could be an un-Godlike waste of time, resources, and effort.
The Bible makes it clear, however, that man is inherently fallen and corrupt. It follows, therefore, that it is not safe to assume, as Chamberlain did, that a person or group of persons will operate with benign intent, at least, not always. What concerns me in the present context is the possibility that Bush and company may have believed that Iran’s leaders were acting only out of benign self-defense when they started trying to procure nuclear weapons. Such a conclusion would naturally lead W. to believe that if he could just convince Iran that it would never have a nuclear Saddam to worry about, that Iran could be peacefully dissuaded from continuing its nuclear weapons program. For it would be far more reasonable for Iran to stop trying to acquire a nuclear stockpile than it would be for Iran to start an extremely expensive and extremely dangerous nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf. Shades of Chamberlain’s thoughts about how to deal with Hitler.
Yet Iran may not have been acting with the best of intentions. Instead, Iran may have been hiding its true ambitions behind a mask of self-defense. For the threat of a nuclear Saddam is long-gone now, yet Iran relentlessly continues to pursue a path which, at a minimum, gives the appearance of a state which is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
If Saddam is no longer a threat, what other reason could Iran have for desiring to become a nuclear-armed state? Well, the answer to that question is disturbing. For although Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has declared that having or using nuclear weapons is against Islam, it may be possible for Iran to use a nuclear bomb in such a way that using it would not really constitute using the nuclear bomb as a nuclear weapon in the usual sense. As was pointed out by this author in the original article on this topic, Iran may be seeking to acquire a nuclear bomb not for the purpose of using it as a nuclear weapon per se, but rather for the purpose of creating an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Used as such, the nuclear bomb is not really utilized as a nuclear weapon. Instead, the bomb is detonated between earth’s atmosphere and the Van Allen Belts (about 18 to 300 miles above the surface). If a relatively small bomb were to be used, it would be too far away from earth’s surface to cause anything more than minor injury or damage (except for blindness for those who look right at it), even if the device is detonated only 18 miles up. That being the case, the use of a nuclear bomb that high up may circumvent the religious edict that it is a sin to use a nuclear weapon; for even though the nuclear bomb would be used as an EMP weapon, it would not be used as a nuclear weapon as one commonly thinks of nuclear weapons. And if the bomb is actually acquired for the purpose of using it this way, then perhaps one has not violated the religious edict against even acquiring or possessing a nuclear weapon. Consider that thought for a moment in light of four very important considerations:
First, the Iranians are Shia Muslims, not Sunni Muslims. The Shia believe strongly in the doctrine of taqiyya (an Arab phrase meaning, roughly, “caution”). The doctrine of using taqiyya is one which permits lying in the defense of Islam or Muslims. Taqiyya may be used to tell an outright lie, but it is more often employed as a form of dissimulation; that is to say, it is principally employed to justify concealment of an important fact in order to mislead someone. One example of dissimulation in a nonreligious matter involved an actual case in which a judge, while considering whether to give a newly-convicted man parole or imprison him, was debating whether the young man might turn his life around if he went back to live with his mother. The judge asked the man, “Where is your mother now?” The man replied, “In Oregon.” That answer was true enough, but as it turns out, the man’s mother was buried in Oregon; she had recently died. But the man did not want the judge to know that she was dead so that the judge could supposedly send him home to live with her rather than send him to prison.
Second, the Iranians have said that their nuclear program is not for the purpose of making a nuclear weapon, but is instead for the purpose of making electricity. To those who are familiar with the details of an EMP, that statement by the Iranians is particularly disturbing. For a nuclear bomb generates an EMP by a burst of gamma rays which excite electrons along the very top of earth’s atmosphere, knocking them up into a higher-energy orbital around each atom’s nucleus. These electrons are then referred to as “Compton electrons”. It is the interaction between the Compton electrons, the Van Allen Belts, and earth’s magnetic field which produces the EMP, as earth’s magnetic field pulls the EMP down toward the earth itself. The thing is, the EMP which is created thereby really is, in essence, a form of electricity. So a nuclear bomb which is used to generate an EMP is in fact being used to generate electricity. That, by itself, is no lie. But the devil, they say, is in the details, and the detail that is perhaps being left out (i.e., the generation of electricity in an EMP rather than in a power plant) that we must worry about.
Third, over the past dozen years Iran has conducted test-firings of its missiles over the Caspian Sea. During some of those tests the warhead was detonated at the apex of the missile’s trajectory. The Iranians then called these tests a success. That would make sense, however, only if the apex of the trajectory were the target for the warhead. And this, in turn, would make sense only if the purpose of the test were to determine whether Iran could detonate a warhead where it would need to do so in order to create an EMP.
Fourth, although the word taqiyya means caution, it is based on an Arabic trilateral root which generally denotes piety or godliness; in other words, it connotes, specifically, a God-fearing form of caution. What is also of interest for sake of discussion here is the fact that, in keeping with its reference to God, taqiyya can also be used as a term to refer to the brightest star. With that in mind, consider the most commonly accepted symbol of Islam: a crescent moon with a brilliant star. Interestingly enough, the brilliant star is often shown in an astronomically impossible position: between the moon and the viewer.
Now, what is the brightest star? The brightest object in the sky after the sun and moon is the planet Venus (which ancients would have thought of as being a wandering star). Significantly, the difference between the Hebrew word for Venus (helel) is barely different from the Hebrew word for Lucifer (halal, or, heylal). Arabic has a virtually identical word for Lucifer, hilal.
There is a passage in the Bible which pertains to all of this. Isaiah 14:12-15 (KJV) says,
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
This is the famous Biblical depiction of the fall of Lucifer. Now, on the face of things this might not seem to be relevant to this discussion, but consider also this: The aforementioned Arabic word for Lucifer, hilal, is also associated with the crescent moon; and the phrase “son of the morning” is one which some sources equate with the planet Venus. Taken together the pertinent part of the above passage from Isaiah can also be read to say, “How art thou fallen from heaven, oh Crescent Moon, Venus [brightest star]!”
Bearing that in mind, what would a nuclear weapon look like if it were detonated above earth’s atmosphere? Well, it would look like the brightest star, one of the things with which taqiyya is associated. And if it were detonated in front of a crescent moon, what would you have? You would have a perfect fulfillment of the most commonly accepted symbol of Islam. And in the process you would, in essence, unleash hell on earth.
Furthermore, given the common orientation of the crescent moon and the star in Muslim imagery (with the lit portion of the moon to the left and the star to the right), for persons in the northern hemisphere (where Islam was born) this Muslim imagery would correspond to the appearance of a bright star near a waning crescent moon just before dawn (as was spoken of in Isaiah), and not the image of a waxing crescent during evening twilight. That being the case, do not be surprised if it may occur to the Iranians to attempt to generate an EMP with a nuclear bomb some day, some year, during the monthly appearance of a thin crescent moon in the pre-dawn sky, perhaps, in fact, just before the end of the holy month of Ramadan (the most holy portion of Ramadan), in a deliberate attempt to strike the United States in a manner which corresponds to Islam’s most famous imagery.
Let us summarize, then: Iran proclaims that it is not trying to enrich uranium for the purpose of creating a nuclear weapon, and that it is only trying to produce electricity. Meanwhile, Iran’s chief spiritual leader also proclaims that it is against Islam to acquire or use a nuclear weapon. But if Iran wishes to acquire a nuclear bomb so that it can use it to create an EMP, its statements disavowing any intent to acquire a nuclear weapon and to use nuclear material only to generate electricity would fit perfectly into the concept of taqiyya. For Iran’s statements would, in the most literal sense, be true; yet such seemingly-innocent statements by Iran would constitute an act of deception because of what would then be left deliberately unspoken about Iran’s being able to create an EMP with the nuclear bomb. Furthermore, by keeping secret the real reason for acquiring nuclear material, Iran would be showing caution, a form of caution which it would consider to be a Godly caution. Iran has also launched missiles in tests which could be deemed “successful” (as they called them) only if the function of the missile launch were to detonate a warhead at the height where one would be best able to generate an EMP. And using a nuclear bomb to generate an EMP attack on the U.S. could be done in a manner which perfectly mimics Islam’s most famous image, while bringing Lucifer himself down to earth and unleashing him here in the U.S.
Does this mean that Isaiah 14:12-15 is specifically a prophecy about such an occurrence? No, not necessarily. It may be instead the case that the parallels to the Bible are a coincidence, or perhaps that certain Iranians would be trying to manufacture a fulfillment of Scripture by deliberately trying to mimic Scripture. Yet one cannot rule out the possibility that in allowing such an attack to occur against the U.S., God Himself would be mimicking His own Scripture by using evil men to bring judgment on the United States for its sins, and doing so in a manner in which God Himself mimics the fall of Lucifer from heaven to earth.
How many warnings from God can we receive before God brings the warnings to an end, and brings judgment upon us for our rebellion against Him? God was quite patient with the Captain Smith of the Titanic. The Titanic had received over 20 ice warnings just before its famous collision with an iceberg, including some from ships which had stopped for the night because of the ice. Yet still the captain sailed on, full speed ahead. And we are doing the same with our own culture today.
Here’s one final point to remember. Chess was invented in India. But it is the ancient Persians who brought it into the form which we know it as today. Bear in mind that the Iranians, ethnically speaking, are themselves Persians, and everything they are doing in the line of missile development and nuclear enrichment is putting them into position to put us in checkmate. And if they do generate an EMP over the heartland of America, it’s game over.
Think it can’t happen? Well, it happened once before, in ancient times, or at least, something very similar. And the Persians are the ones who pulled it off. The ancient Babylonian Empire (located principally where modern-day Iraq is located) was one of the mightiest empires of the ancient world, and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon is one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The walls of Babylon were so thick that two chariots could pass each other on the top of the wall. To the southeast of Babylon lay the Persian Empire which, at the height of Babylon’s glory, was a less powerful empire. Persia and Babylon were at war with each other, but it would have been unthinkable to believe that Persia could have won without years and years of endless war and bloodshed, and at very great financial expense to both sides. Yet the Persians pulled off a maneuver even more stunning than the Babylonians’ own construction of their majestic city, and if ever there were to be a list of Military Wonders of the Ancient World, the Persian triumph over the Babylonians would surely be on the list.
The Babylonians were smug and confident, convinced that they were invincible. They were nearly right. But they did leave an opening for attack. The Euphrates River passed through Babylon, supplying the residents with an endless supply of fresh water. The walls of the city were built right over the ingress and egress of the river. To prevent anyone from sailing into Babylon on the river, the Babylonians used metal grating to block passage into the city from any vessel. But the grating stopped at the water’s surface, and therein did lie the weakness.
The Persians marched their army north through the desert, out of sight of Babylon itself. They came to the Euphrates upstream from Babylon, still out of the sight of the city. They constructed a crude damn over the river and, when the work was nearly done, the army marched south, again remaining out of sight of Babylon until after nightfall. The crew working on the damn continued its efforts and when they were finished that night, the level of water in the river went down dramatically. The Persians snuck into the city by passing underneath the metal grating over the river, which was now very shallow, and overwhelmed the guard. There was a great feast going on that night in Babylon, and the Persians slaughtered the Babylonian army while it was in a drunken stupor. The king of Babylon was slain, and the Persians had conquered Babylon. So although the Babylonian Empire had been entirely intact when the sun had gone down that night, when the sun came up the very next morning, the Babylonian Empire did not even exist. (See Daniel 5:1-31.)
Persia (i.e., Iran) is working toward gaining the capability of pulling off a very similar thing again today against the United States of America with an EMP, and may even possess the capability of doing so right now. They have done a similar thing once before, in ancient times. Do we dare presume that they will not do so again today?
Back to Web Today
Support Our Troops
We ask that you help in whatever way you can to SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.
Please visit one of the links
below to see how you can help out. Our military men & women and
their families appreciate your support in any way possible.Show
them you care.
Any Soldier Inc.