The REAL Power in Iran

The REAL Power in Iran

A reminder of who will elect Iran’s next president, and where he will take the country.

With only seven months until the Iranian presidential elections, speculation about who will inherit the de-sanctioned nation has begun. Aside from current President Hassan Rouhani himself, the frontrunner has been former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That is, until this week.

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad announced that he would not be running for office, per Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s recommendation.

The announcement quenches rumors that have smoldered for weeks. The murmurings stemmed from a letter in which Ahmadinejad demanded that United States President Barack Obama overturn a Supreme Court ruling allowing Iranian assets be used to compensate victims of the 1983 Beirut bombing. His public appearances since then have added fuel to the fires of speculation. A quick meeting with Khamenei at the end of August changed that. On Tuesday in a letter addressed to the supreme leader, Ahmadinejad wrote, “You recommended that it was not in my interest to run in the elections, and I stated [my] obedience.”

Regardless of perceived support among the nation’s ultraconservatives and the radical Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ahmadinejad was missing one crucial vote: the ayatollah’s. Without the endorsement of the supreme leader, Ahmadinejad’s cause was all but extinguished.

The dousing from Ahmadinejad’s superior provides a reminder for us to keep in mind through the next seven months: The next president will be Khamenei’s choice.

Flash back to mid-2013 and the election of Rouhani. At the time, the Western media gushed about the change sweeping Iran. What else could explain the arrival of a “moderate” leader? What most failed to note was the fact that Rouhani was one of just eight candidates. Those eight were handpicked by the Guardian Council from a pool of some 686 potential presidential nominees.

Among those disqualified was a former president looking to run again, considered far more moderate than Rouhani. The murky and subjective criteria of the council means anyone it doesn’t want to run, won’t run—regardless of how popular he is with the masses.

The Guardian Council is an unelected body of 12 religious jurists. Half of the Guardian Council is elected by the supreme leader, and the other half is nominated by the head of the Supreme Court and appointed by the parliament. Oh, and the head of the Supreme Court is selected by the supreme leader. Ipso facto, the group that chooses the presidential candidates is entirely swayed by the ayatollah.

While still a long time until the elections, speculation is circulating that Rouhani may be the first incumbent president not to be re-elected. That said, his closest two rivals have recently dropped out of contention. Fueling the speculation is the fact that everyday Iranians are upset that they have not experienced the promised fruits of the nuclear deal with the P5+1 nations.

This speculation is flawed, however, because it is based on the idea that the public dictates the candidates. History proves the ayatollah couldn’t care less about what the public wants. Remember 2009, when protesters took to the streets after Ahmadinejad won a second term in office. His first (and second) term was mired in corruption and sanctions-inducing rhetoric.

The protests became known as the Green Movement. Though promising regime change, the movement lacked the support of the U.S. and subsequently failed.

A former interior minister claimed that the votes were higher than the eligible voting population in as many as 170 cities across the country. But the Guardian Council assured the public this was not the case. “The incident has happened in only 50 cities,” according to council spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei.

Ultimately the Guardian Council dismissed all allegations of corruption and gave the victory to Ahmadinejad.

This time, few contenders enjoy the political support Rouhani does. The fact that the population is dissatisfied with the results of the nuclear deal means little. What counts is Khamenei’s favor. There is little to suggest that Rouhani doesn’t have it.

But just because the president is a puppet of the ayatollah does not make the election insignificant. Look at what happened in 2013.

Rouhani is just what Iran needed three years ago. Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote in “America’s Deadly Nuclear Deal With Iran”:

On January 17 [one day after the nuclear deal was implemented], Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called the deal a “golden page” and “turning point” for his nation. How true that is! Iran was hemorrhaging financially because of Western sanctions. But the nuclear agreement gave Iran access to $150 billion as the U.S. released its frozen assets.

Iran somehow managed to go from under the boot of the international community to being a strategic pseudo-ally of the U.S. in the war against the Islamic State. Now America is the number one sponsor of the number one state sponsor of terrorism!

Iranian elections may lack the hype of those in the U.S., but history proves that they make a deep impact on the Middle East. Whether the ayatollah wants a new president next year or not, he has big plans for Iran and will choose the man right for the job. We need to understand why.

The Trumpet has long been forecasting those Shiite aspirations, and how President Rouhani—capitalizing on American naivety—has played a key role in pressing toward the goal.

Our recently expanded and updated booklet The King of the South, gives an in-depth look at both the historic and, more importantly, prophetic significance of Iran and subsequently where its leaders are taking the nation.

To whet your appetite, here are a few excerpts:

Since the early 1990s, we have believed and taught that Iran would lead the radical Islamist world and be the king of the south [found in scriptures from Daniel 11]. Today, Iran is “king” in the Middle East. …Anybody with common sense knows you should not negotiate with nations that yearn for your destruction. America negotiated with the worst terrorist-sponsoring nation on Earth and invited it into the community of nations. Is this leading to peace? Read Matthew 24:21-22 to see where it is leading. Nuclear bombs and weapons of mass destruction are about to be put to use on a scale this world has never seen! …This prophecy in Daniel 11:42 is moving toward fulfillment right before our eyes in this end time, and it is mainly because of Iran’s “push” toward radical Islam. But that pushy foreign policy will lead to its downfall in a way that most people cannot imagine!

Iran is mentioned in the Bible, as are its prophesied plans for the Middle East. Do you want to understand where Iran’s leaders both now and after the upcoming election will lead their nation—and your world? It is a deadly trajectory, but one that will be short-lived. Rather than achieve the ayatollah’s goals, it will precede the greatest future we could ever imagine. Curious? Read The King of the South. You truly have nothing to lose, but everything beyond your wildest imagination to gain.

Is the Financial Crisis Coming to Germany?

Is the Financial Crisis Coming to Germany?

Listen to the Trumpet Daily radio program that aired on September 29, 2016.

Deutsche Bank may be about to go bust. If it does, it could bring down Germany’s economy as well as Europe’s. Even a bailout would have major implications for German politics and the eurozone. But Deutsche Bank is just one sign of many that the global financial crisis is about to hit Germany. Trumpet staff writer Richard Palmer explains how this will shake the world. Also on today’s show, the most worrying aspect of the United States presidential debate, and will Elon Musk colonize Mars?

Listen to or download Trumpet Daily Radio Show on:

http://app.stitcher.com/browse/feed/68064/details

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/trumpet-daily-radio-show/id1003885427

http://kpcg.fm/shows/trumpet-daily-radio-show

Shimon Peres, Herbert Armstrong and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process

Shimon Peres, Herbert Armstrong and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process

Listen to the Trumpet Daily radio program that aired on September 28, 2016.

On today’s program, we look back at the efforts of the late Shimon Peres to form a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Peres’s numerous and diligent attempts over the years to forge a peace agreement were lauded by many. Yet hostilities between Israel and the Palestinian people continue to this day. Bible prophecy describes Israel’s efforts to negotiate with its enemies as a “deadly wound.” Stephen Flurry discusses this history and the fascinating role Hebert W. Armstrong played in it, all on today’s Trumpet Daily Radio Show.

Listen to or download Trumpet Daily Radio Show on:

http://app.stitcher.com/browse/feed/68064/details

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/trumpet-daily-radio-show/id1003885427

http://kpcg.fm/shows/trumpet-daily-radio-show

Natural Selection: An Answer to Everything

Natural Selection: An Answer to Everything

iStock.com/zorabcde

I have a beard. I have been informed that the reason I have this beard is not due to personal desire, but because of natural selection. Reportedly, this phenomenon is a result of my instinct to stand out from the other males of my species in order to attract a mate. Gradually, over perhaps many years, others around me will also attempt to follow my example in growing beards to attract female attention. Eventually, those in my locality will hit “peak beard,” which is when there is such a saturation of beards that it becomes too normal, then some of us will shave them off in order to stand out from the crowd again and attract female attention. Then the pendulum will swing back to the “beardless” look. This is the scientific explanation for beards being “in fashion” or “out of fashion”; this is the explanation for those mean mustaches of the ’70s and ’80s.

I have to say, though, I’m not convinced. I’m certainly not intending to attract attention by having a beard. But then again, who am I to counter what my evolved subconscious is thinking?

Welcome, all, to the powerful and influential world of natural selection. You may not know it, but this force is a key influential factor in how you live your life. According to science’s best guess, it is the driving force of evolution.

The phrase “theory of evolution” confuses many people since scientists specifically refer to it as fact. You may not know that evolution is officially considered fact by standard science. Why then is it not called the “fact of evolution”? The theory part of it is how it happens: by Darwin’s natural selection. And this “natural selection” has become the “answer to everything.” Let’s take a look into this world of natural selection as it relates to humans.

Ever wonder why humans are the only “hairless” creatures of our “furry primate family”? Natural selection. No one is quite sure exactly why we went down the furless route—whether it was because temperatures were hot enough not to need fur, or because we went back to being partial water-dwelling creatures before evolving into humans. What we do know is that it must have happened through natural selection. But then there is the scientific problem of why we retain such concentration of hair on our scalp, face, armpits, pubic area (and Uncle Joe’s flowering chest). If our furry selves were naturally selected out, why did hair in these areas remain, especially so ornately around the head? We are left to speculate.

Ever wonder why men are nearly always taller, heavier, stronger than women? That’s natural selection, favoring the bigger males that were able to kill off the smaller males in contest for females. But then there is also the issue of why females are bigger in many other animal species. Natural selection should, in turn, favor larger women who would be more physically able to bear offspring. Thus the balance in sizes of the genders turns into a mathematical equation based on which factors must be the most preferred in separate species.

Ever wonder why men don’t have a baculum? This is the long, rigid bone found in the phallus of nearly all male primates and other mammals. The purpose of this bone shouldn’t take too much explanation: It is insurance, put simply, that attempts at mating will have a higher probability of success. So why don’t males of the human species have them? Natural selection. A prevailing scientific thought is that females of our species apparently preferred men sexually strong enough not to need a baculum (please don’t laugh). Hence, the more “fit” males were the ones without a baculum, and gradually this bone became “naturally selected” out of the human species.

So why does man join the ranks of the so few “baculum-less” mammals? Maybe the females of other mammalian species didn’t really go for the “baculum-less” types. And how did some few of our first humans “lose” their baculum to begin with, before it was recognized as such a desirable trait?

Ever wonder why humans are the only “primates” that walk solely upright, on two legs? Natural selection. It seems that some of our hominid ancestors ended up with a slightly longer gait than others and realized that it was no more exerting to only walk on two legs. Or maybe it was because our ancestors used to walk through water a lot. Or maybe it was to expose less of the body to the sun, in order to cool down more easily. All, of course, the result of natural selection.

Why are human females the only mammals, aside from orca whales and pilot whales, to go through menopause—living far beyond childbearing age? This article admits that it should theoretically be contrary to natural selection. A scientifically “strong” female should be biologically able to spend her whole life bearing children before kicking the bucket. Turns out natural selection had other ideas, for some reason, when it came to women and a couple of whale species.

Here’s one you may not have considered—what about blushing? As Charles Darwin himself wrote: “Blushing is the most peculiar and the most human of all expressions. Monkeys redden from passion, but it would require an overwhelming amount of evidence to make us believe that any animal could blush.”

So how did this somewhat embarrassing trait come to be prevalent in humans? This is still a big question for scientists and has even gone so far as to be called the “biggest gap in evolutionary theory.” Best guesses thus far state that perhaps the “early blushers” were naturally selected because they showed a greater degree of respect for honesty, something important for functioning in a group environment. Yet of course the question remains, how did the first humans begin blushing in order for it to be naturally selected?

And if you’re wondering from what point we mammalians started our separate journeys of natural selection into the different species that we are today, look no further. Here is a depiction of what our common placental ancestor would have looked like, not based on fossil finds, but on hypothetically corroborating genetic similarities. Say hello to the great x 10100 grandma. Inspiring!

Evolution, the fact. Natural selection, the theory—yet the answer to everything. Is there no other way?

Perhaps there is.

The idea of challenging natural selection will come with a scolding. After all, quite different traits can be exhibited in related animal families. For example, the mighty wolf and the pitiful chihuahua are of the same dog family whose genes have been highlighted in different ways through time, geography and, in this case, human intervention. There is plenty of wiggle-room for expression of different characteristics within families of species. Where things get difficult is explaining away cross-species selection. As in, for example, the development of humans. So again I ask, Is there another way?

What if man isn’t, in fact, part of the primate family, and thus could never have been naturally selected from within it? What if he isn’t even a part of the animal kingdom, and thus never could have been naturally selected from it? Perhaps man was created after a different “species” (Genesis 1:24-26). Perhaps he has hair around his head because it was designed as an ornament (Proverbs 20:29; 1 Corinthians 11:15).

Perhaps men were designed to be taller, heavier and stronger in order to protect and serve women and children (Proverbs 20:29; 1 Peter 3:7). Maybe men don’t have a baculum because God intended sex among humans to be more than just for success in occasional brute offspring reproduction (Genesis 2:24; 1 Corinthians 7:3-5). Maybe mankind is the most upright appearing of any bipedal creatures on Earth because that is the way his Creator looks (Genesis 1:26; Revelation 1:13-16)—because it allows man to build and create things like his Maker. Perhaps women continue to live after childbearing age because there are other roles ordained for them in their later years (Titus 2:3-5). Maybe man exhibits physical reactions, like blushing, to moral dilemmas because there was created in him the ability to perceive morality (Titus 1:15; 1 Timothy 4:2).

Maybe man is the way he is because he was designed by a Creator.

Actually, not maybe. “Maybe,” “could be,” “possibly,” “perhaps,” ad nauseam, are all for the realm of the evolutionary journals. The Bible states unequivocally that this is the way it is.

Of course, it’s up to you, the reader, to decide what you believe. By this point, I’ve probably lost a lot of people who started out reading this article as soon as the subject of faith came up. Yet personally, I don’t quite have the immense faith required to believe that this wide world and universe sprang to life from a microscopic particle suspended in a vacuum, or that my beard and I were naturally selected over time from a tiny microorganism. To me, that is just too far-fetched. I don’t believe it could have all just randomly “happened.” The physical realm doesn’t just “happen,” whether you give it 10 years or 10 billion years (doesn’t that seem to be the favored way—if it doesn’t sound believable, slap on an extra helping of multiple millions of years or so).

And I can’t stand the thought that the decisions I make are controlled by some primordial, instinctive computation of natural selection. That I can’t even do something like allow my beard to grow simply because I want to—there has to be some kind of evolutionary reasoning behind it.

What I do believe in is the presence of another realm. One that can’t be discerned by physical science (and thus is rejected by such). Who says there can only exist one dimension—only a physical dimension? Let’s briefly step aside from all the evidence science puts forward to try to show that mankind evolved. Show me the proof that a spirit realm cannot exist. When you think about it logically, evolution itself is a separate question. “Proving” humans were naturally selected over time from a prehistoric sea slug says nothing of the question of a spiritual dimension! What proof does modern scholarship have, to say so unyieldingly that the physical realm is all there is? I do believe in another realm inhabited by other beings—a spiritual realm. Modern science rejects it but hasn’t honestly proved that it doesn’t exist. Just ignoring something doesn’t make it false.

I do believe in God, after which humans were designed. Maybe that’s not “hip” these days, but frankly if whatever is socially acceptable only comes from a primordial computation of natural selection anyway, I couldn’t care less.

I do believe in a Creator who, while making humans flesh and blood, gave humanity a mind that transcends the abilities of any creature in the physical realm (Job 32:8). A mind that enables us to design clothing, use tools, compose music and translate languages; a mind to take us to the moon and back. A mind even capable of questioning its own existence. This mind could never be naturally selected. This mind never could have developed from a tiny subatomic particle suspended in a vacuum at the time of the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.

Science, try as it may, simply cannot explain how this mind works. Modern science deals only with the physical dimension. This is why it has to accept evolution as fact, even though it can only theorize how it happens. It can’t explain why the makeup of the physical human brain is essentially the same as the brain of primates and other animals, yet the difference in output is colossal. There is good news though: You don’t have to be handcuffed to a theory of natural selection! Read What Science Can’t Discover About the Human Mind, and makeup that mind of yours for yourself.

The God I believe in isn’t unreasonable. “Come now, and let us reason together,” He says (Isaiah 1:18). Let’s think about it. Let’s have an educated belief—not a blind faith, either in evolution or religion.

That makes more sense to my bearded self.

War Clouds Are Gathering

War Clouds Are Gathering

iStock.com/RomoloTavani

Listen to the Trumpet Daily radio program that aired on September 27, 2016.

“The widespread instability in Europe, China, Russia and the Middle East … is something we haven’t seen since before World War ii,” George Friedman wrote earlier this month. From the proliferation of nuclear weapons to America’s waning power, the stage is being set for another world war to suddenly shock the globe—except this time it will be much worse than the previous two world wars. On today’s program, Stephen Flurry explores some of the most dangerous trends that are quickly leading toward World War iii.

Listen to or download Trumpet Daily Radio Show on:

http://app.stitcher.com/browse/feed/68064/details

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/trumpet-daily-radio-show/id1003885427

http://kpcg.fm/shows/trumpet-daily-radio-show

Iran Deepens Infiltration of Latin America

Iran Deepens Infiltration of Latin America

Using rogue nations as allies and diplomacy as a cover, the Islamic Republic is exporting its revolution to Central and South America.

A man once accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and for doing so with the collusion of certain rogue nations. That didn’t necessarily make him any different from officials in the United States Intelligence Community or State Department or the multiple millions of people who understand that terrifying reality.

What made him different from most people was that he was found dead with a bullet in his head the day before he was scheduled to testify before the Argentine legislature about Iran’s terror network in Latin America and the state support it received in the region.

On Jan. 14, 2015, special prosecutor Alberto Nisman filed a complaint against then Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and some officials in her administration for covering up Iran’s involvement in the worst terrorist attack in Argentine history—the July 18, 1994, bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (amia) building, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 300 others. Four days later, Nisman was assassinated.

His investigations had revealed a chilling reality: Iranian diplomacy is synonymous with Iranian terrorism—especially in Central and South America.

Let the world beware when the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism boosts its presence in Latin America—as it has in the wake of the nuclear deal.

‘A Whole New Level’

On August 21, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif embarked on his first official visit to Latin America. For eight days, he led a delegation of 120 Iranian politicians and economists to Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Chile, Bolivia and Venezuela. His stated purpose was to “strengthen political and economic ties.”

What exactly are the political and economic gains from these partnerships?

Before the Iran nuclear deal, some Latin American nations provided Iran with avenues for skirting sanctions. A June report titled “After Nisman: How the Death of a Prosecutor Revealed Iran’s Growing Influence in the Americas” noted that “in Latin America, Iran engaged in a variety of sanctions-busting schemes in collaboration with the governments of Venezuela and Ecuador.”

After the nuclear deal, Iran certainly has more money for strengthening its ties with these nations and less restrictions against its endeavors. While in Cuba, Foreign Minister Zarif acknowledged that the nuclear deal had “removed obstacles” to stronger cooperation between his nation and Latin America. Tehran, he also said, “has always shown that we can win through resistance.”

But from an economic standpoint, the costs do not seem to match the benefits. American Foreign Policy Council Vice President Ilan Berman wrote on September 2, “With the notable exception of Chile, the nations that Iran’s foreign minister is courting are all in dire economic straits, struggling with high levels of inflation, rampant joblessness, and—in the case of Venezuela—a full-blown meltdown of the national economy. These countries thus hardly seem suited to be durable partners for Iran’s economy, which is itself struggling after years of multilateral sanctions.”

“Zarif’s choice of stopping points,” Berman wrote, “suggests that the trip is much more about geopolitics than it is about trade.”

Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Zarif’s deputy, said Iran intends to boost those ties to “a whole new level.” Iranian geopolitics in this region is now shifting to “a whole new level.”

The Latin American nations Zarif visited are anti-Western. They are more inclined to befriend “the enemy of their enemies,” even if that support is, in some ways, irrational. Consider Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, who, during Zarif’s visit, praised Iran, saying, “Contrary to the U.S. and other Western powers which employ their power for war, conflict, slaughter and plundering resources of other nations, Iran is the power of peace, tranquility and prosperity for other countries.” In Cuba, Zarif’s counterpart praised the “success of [Iran’s] foreign policy” and expressed his support for Iran to “develop nuclear energy for pacific ends.”

Another common denominator these countries share is Iran’s most enterprising terrorist proxy: Hezbollah. Referencing observers like researcher and founder of the American Center for Democracy, Rachel Ehrenfeld, London-based Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat noted that “the countries on Zarif’s list were all involved in a way or another in supporting Hezbollah, Iran’s terrorist wing.”

Hezbollah’s presence in Latin America goes back to the 1980s, and in recent times, the terrorist group has expanded its activities by venturing into money laundering, drug trafficking and arms smuggling. Hezbollah has even used its earnings to fund its militant activities in Syria.

“Zarif’s trip,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, “is a clear indication of Iran’s intent to expand its operations in the Americas post-nuclear deal, given that in the past, press reports have stated that Hezbollah maintains a presence in Cuba, Iran helped open a military facility in Bolivia, and Venezuela’s [state-owned oil company] pdvsa was sanctioned for cooperating with Iran.”

Ros-Lehtinen added, “Tehran’s classic playbook is to use cultural centers, new embassies or consulates, or cooperative agreements on various areas to act as facades aimed at expanding Iran’s radical extremist network.”

“Across Latin America,” the National Interest wrote on April 27, “Iran’s public face appears innocuous: mosques, cultural centers, schools, halal meat inspectors, religious literature, social work and even Boy Scout groups. Yet beneath the veneer of piety, outreach and interfaith dialogue, Tehran leverages connections with anti-American regimes and movements to gain a foothold in the region and to indoctrinate local Muslims in its brand of revolutionary Islam.”

Iran has striven to promote Shiite Islam in Latin America. Nearly simultaneously, the Muslim population in the region has reportedly increased 25 percent since 2010.

Zarif’s trip was as innocuous as an Iranian embassy or cultural center. But these political, cultural and economic entities have often been used by Iranians to recruit radical Islamists and coordinate terrorist attacks not only in Latin America but also in the United States. The 2011 attempted assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S. in Washington, d.c., is one stark example. Another was the 2007 plot to blow up jet fuel supply tanks at the John F. Kennedy Airport in New York City.

The latter example was coordinated by Mohsen Rabbani, an Iranian intelligence official who operated under commercial, cultural and diplomatic covers as a halal meat inspector, a Shiite cleric and a cultural attaché at the Iranian Embassy in Argentina.

Classic Case Study: The AMIA Bombing

Rabbani was also the mastermind of the 1994 amia bombing in Argentina. Rabbani and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani were among eight Iranian officials and a Lebanese militant whom the assassinated prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, had formerly accused for the amia bombing.

According to the special report published by the Center for a Secure Free Society on June 21, Iran coordinated all of its Latin American activities via its embassy in Spain, and Rabbani kept in close contact with it. “According to European intelligence officials,” the report said, “Rabbani belonged to [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s] special intelligence bureau and worked in Germany prior to arriving in Argentina. … Once in Argentina, coordinating with Iranian embassies in Spain, Germany, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, Uruguay, Cuba and Mexico, Rabbani immediately began creating a comprehensive cover platform to insert additional Iranian operatives into the Southern Cone region.”

Iranian embassies in Brazil and Colombia, in collaboration with Hezbollah operatives in those countries, provided logistical support for the amia attack. These embassies established multiple front companies for their nefarious activities. One of those companies is Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (irisl). The Argentine intelligence reports on the amia attack accused irisl of transporting the Iranian-made explosives that were used in the bombing. (Until recently, irisl was under sanctions for supporting Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.)

Interpol has since issued a Red Notice for Mohsen Rabbani, but he continues his recruitment activities from the Iranian city of Qom. According to an April 2011 article from the Brazilian Veja magazine, Rabbani “frequently slips in and out of Brazil on a false passport and has recruited at least 24 youngsters in three Brazilian states to attend ‘religious formation’ classes in Tehran.”

In an interview with the Cipher Brief published August 11, former U.S. Treasury Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis Matthew Levitt said, “Iran and Hezbollah remain hyperactive in Latin America—a fact that has the full attention of U.S. intelligence officials and their counterparts south of the border.”

According to Levitt, congressional testimony by the State Department following the amia attack expressed concern over “larger-than-necessary numbers of diplomats” in Iranian embassies in Latin America.

In fact, just before the amia bombing, Iran sharply increased its communications among its Latin America operatives. But for security purposes, it shifted from electronic communications to couriers—a move that necessitated even more undercover Iranian agents infiltrating the continent.

Iran is one of only three “state sponsors of terrorism.” The other states in this exclusive list—Syria and Sudan—are themselves sponsored and inspired primarily by Tehran!
The King of Terror

In its June report on global terrorism, the State Department wrote, “Iran remained the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in 2015, providing a range of support, including financial, training and equipment, to groups around the world—particularly Hezbollah. … Iran was joined in [its Middle Eastern terrorist] efforts by Hezbollah, which continued to operate globally, as demonstrated by the disruption of Hezbollah activities in Peru in 2014 ….”

Iran’s disruptive activities via Hezbollah clearly go well beyond Peru.

Both the State Department and U.S. Intelligence Committee consider Iran “the foremost state sponsor of terrorism.” If that sounds cliché, consider this: Iran is one of only three state sponsors of terrorism. The other states in this exclusive list—Syria and Sudan—are themselves sponsored and inspired primarily by Tehran!

In The King of the South, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry explains from Bible prophecy that Iran’s nefarious activities will continue until a superpower decisively and violently deals with Iran—once and for all. Daniel 11:40 reads, “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south [radical Islam led by Iran] push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.”

This superpower will not be the United States. It will be a union of European nations. One reason Europe will decide to confront Iran is that the Islamic Republic is the king of radical Islam, and its influence is global.

Iran’s brand of radical Islam is strong in Central and South America for the same reason it is strong in Africa and Europe. The United States acknowledges Iran’s terror network, but it also tolerates it to a great extent. The Bible prophesies that a European power will violently clash with Iran’s network of radical Islamists. Thankfully, that clash will lead events that culminate in an era of global peace!