Are You Ready for When the ‘Ten Kings’ Come Together?

Are You Ready for When the ‘Ten Kings’ Come Together?

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Listen to the Trumpet Daily radio program that aired on December 16, 2016.

Stratfor posted an article this week titled “The Year That May Decide Europe’s Fate.” Coming on the heels of what was already a dramatic year for Europe, 2017 may prove to be the year that the eurozone becomes defunct. Bible prophecy indicates that Europe is going to have to undergo some incredible reorganizing to pave the way for it to be ruled by “ten kings.” Events in Europe right now are leading to these major changes. Listen to Stephen Flurry comment on these stories and more 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

The Russian Alliance You Really Have to Worry About

The Russian Alliance You Really Have to Worry About

WIN MCNAMEE/Getty Images, MIKHAIL SVETLOV/Getty Images

Concern over a Trump-Putin friendship is misplaced. Instead, watch for the global order to be overturned by a different relationship.
From the April 2017 Trumpet Print Edition

Donald Trump and Russia. It has become one of the most discussed potential romances of our time.

The United States abandoning its traditional Western allies and siding instead with Vladimir Putin would be the most dramatic realignment in global politics since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It won’t happen. America may try to draw close to Russia, but no close alliance is possible.

Instead, there is another alliance coming that the world should really pay attention to.

A Short-Lived Alliance

Just weeks into Mr. Trump’s presidency, the wheels already seemed to be coming off the much-anticipated U.S.-Russia alliance. National Security adviser Michael Flynn, the most pro-Russian of Mr. Trump’s advisers, was fired. The U.S. said it will not end sanctions on Russia and that it expects Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Russia went back to business as usual, violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and buzzing U.S. ships in the Black Sea.

Mr. Trump is about as well known for his consistency as he is for his modesty, so this could change. But there are more fundamental reasons to expect this Russo-American détente to fail.

Barack Obama began his presidency with his infamous “reset” with Russia. George W. Bush declared Putin a man Americans could trust. Bill Clinton’s collapse into uncontrollable laughter at a 1995 press conference with President Boris Yeltsin suggested, if not trust, then at least an absence of fear.

No president starts his term wanting conflict with Russia. But no recent president has avoided one. Why? Because alliances are not based on intention or good will. We live in a world founded in selfishness. An alliance works if both sides get what they want. The alliance must be in the self-interest of both parties.

A Russo-American alliance has continually failed because it is in neither nation’s long-term interests.

What Are These Nations’ Interests?

America’s number one interest is to prevent any power from rising up to challenge it. The only place such a power could come from in the foreseeable future is Eurasia. “[O]ur constant concern in peacetime must be to see that no nation or alliance of nations is allowed to emerge as a dominating power in either of the two regions of the Old World from which our security could be threatened,” wrote Prof. Nicholas Spykman, one of America’s greatest thinkers on the subject of international relations (The Geography of the Peace). He was referring to Europe on the Atlantic, and East Asia on the Pacific.

During the last 70 years, that potential challenger has been Russia—particularly in the form of the Soviet Union. And so the U.S. has opposed Russia.

But Russia is not Mr. Trump’s top concern. China is a massive and assertive trade power. Germany is using the euro to economically dominate the eurozone. Therefore, Mr. Trump believes, America could ally with the declining power of Russia and oppose Germany, China and also radical Islam.

But what can America offer to persuade Russia to turn against China and to confront Europe?

Russia’s top interest is to dominate Eastern Europe. It has no natural frontiers there. This is why Russia constantly pushes as far west as it can. Historically, this extra space between Europe and Russia’s heartland has thwarted most attempts to conquer Russia.

Russia also has an interest in confronting Islamic terror and in gaining access to Western finance and technology.

There are complementary interests and the potential for an alliance. But the problem is that the price Russia would have to demand—to make it worth its while to turn on China and Germany—is higher than the U.S. can afford. Russia would need help in achieving its main interest: more space in Eastern Europe.

America cannot afford that. America cannot be certain that Russia is no longer its top threat. Though Russia lacks the economic heft of either the European Union or China, it has a formidable military and, most importantly, a formidable leader. In backing Russia, many even in Mr. Trump’s administration fear that the U.S. could be building up its own worst enemy.

An alliance with Russia then, actually threatens America’s number one interest. Of course Mr. Trump would love to get Russia on his side without giving much in return. But that is not how the world works. Thus, no long-term alliance is on the cards.

There could be short-term arrangements. In the Middle East, for example, America and Russia could work together. And it would be possible for America to make concessions in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. But we will not see a wholesale global realignment around a U.S.-Russia alliance.

The fundamental difference in interest between the U.S. and Russia has meant that they have allied together only once in history: in World War ii. This addressed an urgent threat to both powers, but it was short-lived and immediately gave way to a nuclear-armed Cold War rivalry.

But there is another power with more compatible interests—one that Russia has allied with repeatedly.

The Real Power Couple

Germany’s core interest is to avoid encirclement—a hostile France in the West and hostile Russia in the East. This interest is taken care of, thanks to the EU. Germany has no fear of a French invasion.

Another important interest is a secure export market for its heavily export-dependent economy. This it meets primarily through the eurozone. The countries of the eurozone are locked into a common currency and cannot raise their exchange rates. This means that imbalances that would normally fix themselves over time cannot—so Germany can export far more to these countries than it imports. It also provides Germany with a de facto subsidy when exporting to other markets.

The migrant crisis and radical Islam make the Middle East another important interest for Germany.

Russia and Germany have much to gain by working together. Historically, Russia could only dominate Eastern Europe when European powers were weak, or when they acquiesced.

Meanwhile, the two have several complementary interests. Economically, they go together hand in glove. Germany has excellent technology and manufacturing, and needs to export. Russia needs to buy Western technology and know-how. Russia has energy commodities, and Germany is among its best customers. Russia’s deep ties to the Middle East make it the perfect partner for a Germany that needs to stem the tide of refugees into Europe. Russia has even edged its way into the euro crisis—its strong ties to Cypriot and Greek financial systems mean that it could hurt or help Germany’s economic ambitions.

Furthermore, an alliance with Germany does not require Russia to drop its alliance with China. Thus it needs much less from Germany to make such an alliance worth its while.

Germany, then, can afford to pay the price Russia requires, while the U.S. cannot. The cost-benefit calculation looks very different.

A Russo-German alliance still carries risks. Done recklessly, it could alienate much of Central and Eastern Europe. But with care, allowing Russia to expand its sphere of influence into parts of Eastern Europe would actually drive the remaining countries to Germany. Germany would also have to be sure it was rewarded enough to make up for the extra insecurity that would come from an expanded Russian sphere of influence.

But Germany, whether it wants it or not, is being forced into this alliance.

Germany Has Little Choice

The other major part of President Trump’s foreign policy is a withdrawal from the world. He believes the U.S. is spending far too much money intervening beyond its shores.

If America withdraws from Europe, Germany is left with little choice but to cut a deal with Russia. Economically, the EU dwarfs Moscow—but militarily, Russia is a force to be reckoned with. Right now Europe could not stand up to Russia alone. So, what do you do if you can’t beat them?

Writing during the latter half of the Cold War, Hans Morgenthau, in a later edition of Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, outlined what could happen if America withdrew from Europe. The nations of Europe are “ambivalent towards the United States, whose support they need but resent,” he wrote. If the U.S. withdraws, these countries “may then perceive themselves as having been abandoned by the United States and having to face the Soviet Union alone, unchallengeable in its military power.” This, he wrote, would force the nations of Europe to “accommodate themselves with Russia.”

If Germany does this, it “would signify a drastic change in the distribution of world power,” Morgenthau concluded. For Germany, there are “rational arguments … in support of an Eastern orientation.”

Today, the Russian military is not as overwhelming as it once was. But if America pulls out of Europe, Germany still faces a similar dilemma.

Trump’s openness to an alliance with Russia has also made it easier for European powers to draw closer to Russia. The top leaders of Germany’s Christian Social Union (csu), part of Germany’s ruling coalition, have remained close to Russia, despite their nation’s sanctions against it. In 2016, Bavarian State Premier Horst Seehofer and Honorary csu Chairman Edmund Stoiber visited Russian President Vladimir Putin. Stoiber welcomed the election of Donald Trump, partly because he believed it could help open the door for closer relations between Germany and Russia. Trump, he said, will “set a new tone in foreign policy.”

A History of War

These same pressures now heaped on Germany have led to similar alliances in the past. From 1772 to 1795, Prussia, Austria and Russia divided the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth among themselves. At that point, Poland extended much farther eastward than it did today, including almost all of present-day Belarus.

Shortly afterward, German generals helped modernize the Russian Army. As Leo Tolstoy noted in War and Peace, one Russian general was so irked by the commanding role Germans played in the Russian Army that he reportedly asked the emperor if he could be promoted to the rank of German.

While Otto von Bismarck united the German states, he worked hard to stay on Russia’s good side. As he famously said, the secret to politics is to “make a good treaty with Russia.”

In the early 20th century, the German high command rejected Bismarck’s advice, thinking Germany had a shot at defeating Russia. Russia collapsed during World War i, but Germany lost in the West. The fall of both Russia and Germany allowed Poland to become an independent state for the first time since it had been divided. Other smaller nations sprouted up. The next time Germany tried to take over Europe, it made a treaty with Russia first. The Rapallo Treaty helped Germany rise from the ashes of World War i. Then Poland was again divided in the infamous Hitler-Stalin pact, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Shortly thereafter, Hitler caught Stalin napping and attacked Russia, a decision he may or may not have lived long enough to regret.

The history between Germany and Russia proves not only that their self-interests align better with each other’s than with America’s. It also proves that self-interest is self-interest: Once one nation thinks it can gain more by stabbing its “ally” in the back, it will do so.

Another Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

The shared interests here are so powerful that the Trumpet has long forecast a new alliance between these two nations.

In May 1962, the Plain Truth—predecessor of the Trumpet—wrote, “Once a German-dominated Europe is fully established, Germany will be ready to negotiate and bargain with Russia—and behind the backs of the Western allies if necessary.”

“When a Russo-German deal is made, you can be sure that the doom of the United States and Great Britain is on the horizon,” warned the same article.

Sound far-fetched? Eminent scholars in the field of international relations made the same warning! To Morgenthau, such a deal would be “a drastic change in the distribution of world power.” Spykman warned that the lack of a unified power in Europe or in East Asia “is an absolute prerequisite for the independence of the New World and the preservation of the power position of the United States.”

“The United States must recognize once again and permanently, that the power constellation in Europe and Asia is of everlasting concern to her, both in time of war and in time of peace,” Spykman wrote.

Under threat is America’s most core interest of all: its very survival.

This coming Russo-German alliance will last only as long as it is in the interests of both parties. Historically, that has not been long.

“[L]ook at history,” warns Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry. “Every time competition between Russia and Germany heats up, they form a deal with one another—just before going to war!” (Russia and China in Prophecy).

Those wars have expanded to engulf the world and have turned these allies-of-convenience against each other in devastating manner.

There are already strong signs that the two sides have been talking and dealing. Germany has emerged, more recently, as Europe’s leading opponent to Russia—although even as it has rallied other nations to keep pressing sanctions, it has continued to work on some potentially lucrative pipeline deals with Russia.

But pressure is now building on these two powers to work together much more closely—a development that will quickly change the world.

Can Mr. Trump Stop America’s Asian Allies From Defecting to China?

Can Mr. Trump Stop America’s Asian Allies From Defecting to China?

TORU YAMANAKA/AFP/Getty Images

In recent months, several of America’s closest Asian allies have “defected” to China. Unsure about the direction and commitment of the United States, and unable to ignore China’s growing power and its intensifying resolve to use that power, nations that have aligned themselves with the U.S. for decades are now changing course. The Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand are making a calculated decision to realign themselves with Beijing—or to lay groundwork to be able to do so in the future. This development highlights three prophetically significant trends: The decline of American might, the rise of China’s power, and the emerging alliance that the Bible calls the “Kings of the East.”

Listen to or download the Trumpet Daily Radio Show with:

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

Week in Review: Iran and North Korea in Nuclear Collusion, Putin’s Russia Gains Ground, Democratic Party Shifts Left, and More

Week in Review: Iran and North Korea in Nuclear Collusion, Putin’s Russia Gains Ground, Democratic Party Shifts Left, and More

Mark Wilson/Getty Images, Xinhua/Getty Images, Martha de Jong-Lantink

All you need to know about everything in the news this week

Get all the important news from February 26–March 3: Download the Trumpet Weekly.Click here to receive your own copy by e-mail every week.

Highlights:

Will Iran get nukes from North Korea?

  • “Iran is steadily making progress towards a nuclear weapon and is doing so via North Korea,” two nuclear experts wrote in a new paper published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies on Tuesday.
  • The experts claim the collusion between the two rogue states creates a way for Iran to clandestinely circumvent the nuclear deal implemented with world powers on Jan. 16, 2016.
  • Under the Obama administration, planes from North Korea flew directly to Iran without having to stop in a nation like China for rigorous nuclear proliferation inspections.
  • This week’s Trumpet Hour and Gerald Flurry’s free booklet The King of the South show how a nuclear-armed Iran will be stopped once and for all.
  • Luhansk officially adopts the Russian ruble

  • Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an executive order that authorized the recognition of passports, birth certificates, death certificates, diplomas, vehicle registrations and other documents from the separatist regions of Luhansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine.
  • On Monday, officials in Luhansk announced that the Russian ruble would be the official currency of their breakaway territory beginning on March 1.
  • After Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote: “Russia’s attack on Georgia in August marks the beginning of a dangerous new era in history. This was the first military strike of a rising Asian superpower—and there will be more!”
  • Luhansk and Donetsk are the latest victims of Putin’s attempts to revive the Soviet empire.
  • Chinese naval base in Djibouti nears completion

  • After two years of media pronouncements and public relations campaigns, and after one year of construction, China’s naval base in the East African nation of Djibouti is now a reality: It will begin operations later this year.
  • Djibouti Foreign Minister Mahmoud Ali Youssouf told the Financial Times that the number of Chinese personnel would probably number “a few thousand.”
  • The base will provide maintenance facilities for ships and helicopters, docks for commercial ships and military vessels, and storage facilities for weapons.
  • This is “a huge strategic development,” Prof. Peter Dutton of the Naval War College told the New York Times. “China has learned lessons from Britain of 200 years ago. This is what expansionary powers do.”
  • Democratic Party shifts harder to the left

  • On Saturday, the Democratic National Committee elected former United States Labor Secretary Tom Perez as its new chairman.
  • Perez was once described by the vice president of strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit libertarian think tank, as “possibly the most dangerous person in the [Obama] administration.”
  • Within moments of his election, Perez made the strategically savvy move of making Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota his deputy chairman and declaring him the new “face of the Democratic Party.”
  • Ellison has past ties to Marxist organizations and experience in community organizing. He said in a January interview: “It’s time for people to get active, to get involved, to vote and to organize. … Trump must be stopped, and people power is what we have at our disposal to make him stop. We need mass rallies. We need them all over the country. We need them in Texas. We need them in D.C. We need them in Minnesota.”
  • Other news:

  • Iran conducted large-scale naval exercises in the northern Indian Ocean on February 26. They were part of Operation Velayat 95, which ran from February 13 to March 1, and included drills in an area of nearly 800,000 square miles from the Strait of Hormuz leading into the Persian Gulf, around the Saudi Peninsula to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait leading into the Red Sea.
  • On Tuesday, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte apologized to Germany for failing to prevent the beheading of German national Jürgen Gustav Kantner by the Philippine Islamist group Abu Sayyaf. The German government released a statement, saying, “We’ve all got to stand together in the fight against terrorists.”
  • Get the details on these stories and more by subscribing to the Trumpet Weekly!

    The Thin Evidence of Counting Calories

    It’s not the quantity that counts.
    From the April 2017 Trumpet Print Edition

    If you’re one of 45 million Americans planning a low-calorie, quick-fix diet to solve your weight or health problem, take some advice: Don’t. Many doctors, nutritionists and food marketers actively promote restrictive eating, but there are good reasons to take a different approach.

    According to Scientific American, the source of your calories is more important than just how many you eat. In fact, what makes us fat is not necessarily just a calorie imbalance but also a hormonal divergence, with the prime suspect being the quality of the foods we consume.

    A Faulty Beginning

    In 1921, Lulu Hunt Peters wrote the first American blockbuster diet book, Diet and Health, With Key to the Calories. Since then, restricting calories has been the main form of “dieting.” Peters wrote, “A person can eat what they like—candy, pie, cake, fat meat, butter, cream—but they need to count calories!”

    Seventy years later, not much had changed. The American Journal of Medicine said that between 1980 and 1990, Americans were consuming 4 percent fewer calories and 11 percent less fats than before, and fat-free food consumption rose from 19 percent to 76 percent. Yet over the same decade, obesity in America rose a bewildering 31 percent.

    Now we are over 90 years on, and the long-held notion of calorie restriction still hovers at a dismal 95 percent long-term failure rate; often, it proves harmful. Yet people continue to count their calories—and eat “low calorie” pre-packaged pies, cakes and so on as they do.

    A Hormonal Issue?

    Calories are important factors in weight loss and weight maintenance. But food quality is more important. More and more experts are seeing that it is better to consume quality food than to reduce calories. Unfortunately in America, convenience food is found in every nook and cranny. The average American now consumes 2,481 calories a day, about 23 percent more than in 1970.

    As a person becomes conscious of weight gain, he often cuts back on calories. Instead of reaching for healthier, more natural foods, many turn to more processed, low-calorie options, with unexpected results. They do not stop to realize that a given calorie’s worth of salmon, olive oil, white rice or boxed cereal each has a different effect in the body. Whole foods inhibit appetite and promote energy, while processed foods promote hunger and energy storage.

    Dr. David Ludwig, author of Always Hungry, writes that we have to think about obesity in terms of what makes us overeat: “When you’re gaining weight, something has triggered your fat cells to store too much energy, which doesn’t leave enough for the rest of the body. That ‘something’ is often the hormone insulin.”

    While generally there is no one whole-food nutrient to blame for insulin trouble and weight gain, Ludwig correctly singles out refined grains, starches and sugars (found in many low-calorie foods) as the principal drivers. When your body’s insulin response is out of control, cutting back further on calories can actually make the problem worse. The excess insulin secretion causes cells to retain fat rather than using it to fuel the body. As few as 10 or 20 calories stored as excess fat each day can lead to obesity over decades.

    Some experts still insist that all grains are problematic, but this is not true if they are complex and unprocessed. It’s the hyper-processed, overly stimulating foods with their intense taste and textures that are unhealthy and create food addictions. They also put the brakes on satiating hormonal signals, slow down your metabolism, cause thyroid hormones to drop and cortisol levels to rise, and activate fat-storage enzymes. The end result: excess body fat storage.

    Journal Your Way to Health

    Our bodies are complex and intricate creations. Since we must store nutrients continually in the body, we also have to eat a balanced, nutritious daily diet. Depriving the body of healthy food—or much food at all—in order to lose weight is the worst thing to do.

    Natural foods, which have the highest nutritional content, do not need nutrition labels because they are often the lowest in calories anyway. But even natural meat and dairy foods that have higher calorie counts will nourish your body when consumed with the proper balance. To make sure you eat enough natural foods, you have to understand your eating habits. The easiest way to do so is not to relentlessly track every calorie based on its packaging and labels, but to instead keep a simple daily food journal. Note what you eat and how much, as well as perhaps when and why. This can be as simple as leaving a notepad out near the kitchen or in a kitchen drawer and jotting down, 3 cups spaghetti, 2 cups broccoli, 1 glass water.

    The Creator of the human body also designed the food that fuels it. Humanly manufactured and mass-produced products simply are not proper fuel. God’s principle in eating, as with many other aspects of life, is always balance. Whether you have a weight or health problem, you don’t need to restrict your calories. You can undo decades of unbalanced and excessive eating by sticking to a wide variety of high-quality, fresh, natural, unprocessed foods. As you adjust your expectations and your taste buds to this type of eating, you will find it to be free of unpleasant side effects, filling, easily sustained and much tastier!

    Nile River Dam Obstructing Ethiopia-Egypt Relations

    Nile River Dam Obstructing Ethiopia-Egypt Relations

    ZACHARIAS ABUBEKER/AFP/Getty Images

    Will disputes over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam spill over into conflict—or something else?

    Falling as a gentle rain in the mountains of Gojjam, the lifeblood of nations begins. Trickling down the slopes, the runoff forms creeks, and the creeks feed waterways such as the Lesser Abay River. These rivers run across the plains and waterfalls of Ethiopia to fill the country’s largest body of water, Lake Tana. And from this lake flows the Blue Nile, the primary source of the mighty Nile River.

    Those formative raindrops travel more than 5,000 miles until they reach the Mediterranean Sea.

    But along the way, they now face a new obstacle, one that affects those who live along the Nile, and those who live far from it.

    Controversial Construction

    Now rising up in the path of the Blue Nile is the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (gerd). Many Ethiopians say this vast project is the solution to the country’s energy crisis. But downstream, Egypt’s 94 million residents live almost exclusively along the Nile. And the Egyptians consider the dam a threat. As the Trumpet wrote in 2012, “The power to shut down the Nile—even temporarily—is the power to destroy Egypt.”

    Ethiopia has staunchly defended the project, attempting to dismiss Egypt’s fears. But with the dam now 70 percent completed, cracks in Ethiopia’s arguments are forming. Egyptians think this confirms their skepticism, and relations between Egypt and Ethiopia are showing major signs of stress.

    How does this affect you? Both of these nations are located beside some of the world’s most important maritime choke points, which could easily shut off seaborne trade in the event of an open conflict. Large portions of oil and commerce traverse the Bab el-Mandeb and the Suez Canal. Millions of barrels of oil and millions of tons of other goods are the fuel that keep nations running, particularly in Europe.

    But even more importantly, the dam could play into a soon-coming Islamic alliance in the Middle East that the Trumpet has warned about for more than a decade. And that alliance will affect the entire world. For that reason, fissures in Ethiopian-Egyptian relations are no small matter.

    Upsetting Egypt

    On January 31, International Rivers released a condemning article titled “Five Myths Surrounding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.” International Rivers is a nonprofit, nongovernmental environmental and human rights organization in Berkeley, California. The organization says it purpose is to protect rivers and the rights of the people who rely upon them. The report stated that the dam will not solve Ethiopia’s energy problems; Ethiopians will not benefit from buying bonds to finance it, and Ethiopia will go into debt; the dam will not increase access to electricity; its environmental effects are negative; and Sudan and Egypt will not benefit from its existence.

    Downstream from the dam, Sudan could suffer not only from lack of water, but from lack of dirt. The nation relies on sediment washed down from Ethiopia to nourish its soil. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam will inhibit much of that.

    But Egypt is the one to watch. Egyptians use 97 percent of the Nile water that reaches their nation. According to the Wall Street Journal, 60 percent of the Nile comes from the Blue Nile. Cutting that flow, even temporarily, would cause terrible damage to Egypt. To fill gerd’s reservoir will take an estimated five to seven years. International Rivers stated, “Ethiopia’s decision to build the gerd threatens Egypt’s water resources by increasing the possibility of food and water shortages, as well as public health risks.”

    Given the projected loss of water to evaporation, the severe downstream impacts of the dam and the fact that Ethiopia has never made the Environmental Impact Assessment for the project publicly available, the government of Ethiopia has clearly not fulfilled its obligation to take all appropriate measures to prevent significant harm from the gerd to downstream countries (ibid.).

    More than 3,500 miles downstream from the construction site, what is going through the minds of Egypt’s leaders in Cairo? Ethiopia is constructing a 574-foot high valve—one that it can leave open, or shut off. Already 28 percent of Egyptians live in poverty. The World Food Program estimates that 16 percent of Egyptians have poor access to food; in upper Egypt, the figure is 39 percent. Egypt is already the world’s largest importer of wheat. Should Ethiopia choose to shut off the valve, Egypt will be devastated.

    This means Cairo has plenty of motivation to take action, radical action, if neccessary.

    Threats

    In November 2012, Wikileaks published e-mails hacked from Stratfor. One dispatch written in May 2010 during the regime of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak cited an agreement between Egypt and Sudanese President Umar al-Bashir. The deal was to build a small air base in Kusti to “accommodate Egyptian commandos who might be sent to Ethiopia to destroy water facilities on the Blue Nile.”

    Mubarak was overthrown in 2011 by Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi secretly filmed and aired on live television a meeting with top generals, in which the generals discussed options for sabotaging or destroying the dam.

    Ever since gerd was proposed, military action has been on the table for Egypt. Perhaps one of the main reasons the dispute has not escalated into an international conflict is the fact that Egypt and Sudan have undergone major political and social instability over the past decade.

    A Long-Forecast Result

    What is ahead for this African dispute? Will Ethiopia and Egypt clash until one side wins the dispute? The answer may surprise you.

    The relationship that is about to form between Egypt and Ethiopia in the next few years was forecast long before the first engineer sketched out the first blueprint for the dam.

    In fact, these two nations will soon be in an alliance.

    That forecast comes from a source as ancient as Ethiopia and Egypt themselves: the Holy Bible. Daniel 11:43 describes a conflict between two world powers, a king from the north who overwhelms a king from the south. The king of the north “shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.”

    These prophecies were not for kingdoms in Daniel’s lifetime; Daniel himself did not understand them. He asked what they meant, and the response he received is revealing: “Go thy way Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end” (Daniel 12:9). Putting this scripture together with others that mention this “time of the end” time frame shows that this prophecy is for our lifetime.

    To identity the king of the south, request Gerald Flurry’s free booklet, The King of the South, first published in 1993. In it, the Trumpet editor in chief discussed how radical Islam led by Iran would fill the role of the king of the south, and Egypt, Libya and Ethiopia would ally with Iran.

    In the early 90s and for decades since, many have been skeptical at this forecast. But look at Libya today: It is a wildly unstable nation vulnerable to just such an outcome. Look at Egypt: Although Morsi has been deposed, it is remarkable at how rapidly he and the Muslim Brotherhood radicalized Egypt’s leadership. That potential remains today. Meanwhile, Iran has capitalized on the Arab Spring and other trends and has spread radical Islam right up to Ethiopia’s borders!

    In the April 2011 issue of the Trumpet, Mr. Flurry prophesied specifically that Libya and Ethiopia would become beholden to radical Islam. At the time, there was very little geopolitical evidence to suggest that either nation could become part of a radical jihadist alliance. But he made that prediction based on Daniel 11:43. “This verse states that Libya and Ethiopia are also going to be closely allied with Iran!” he stated.

    We do not know the exact details of how this alliance would form. The gerd could certainly play a role. War, regime change or even regional instability could create fertile ground for radicalism and an Islamist revolution. Libya is a prime example of how quickly nations can change. Egypt and Ethiopia ought to take note!

    How this alliance will happen we don’t know—but we do know the outcome, no matter what current events indicate. Just like rain on the mountains can eventually become the Nile River, so too can a seemingly small occurrence—disputes over a dam, the fall of a leader, a drought or a famine—lead to the onrushing fulfillment of a major Bible prophecy.

    The Trumpet concluded its 2012 article “War Over the Nile” by stating, “The Bible says Egypt will soon be instrumental in bringing a radical political reorientation to Ethiopia. Watch while it happens.”