Israel Offers Plan to Divide Jerusalem

Israel Offers Plan to Divide Jerusalem


The new Jewish government begins its path of retreat. An “avalanche of crises” is about to ensue.

“Jerusalem is about to be cut in half”—so read a headline from Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry in March. This article contained bold predictions about the future of the world’s holiest and bloodiest city, even stating that the city’s division could occur within the year.

“The United Nations, America, Europe, the Palestinians and even the Middle East Jews themselves are discussing how they must surrender East Jerusalem!” Mr. Flurry wrote.

The most concrete example of the latter has now emerged—a plan from the new Israeli government, which was just elected in March. The proposal offers portions of Jerusalem to the Palestinians for their use as a capital city.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s plan—which he contends is not dividing Jerusalem, rather sharing it—calls for evacuating Jews from the city’s Arab neighborhoods, which comprise much of the eastern sections of Jerusalem. This evacuation would ensure a “Jewish majority” in Israel’s territory and help complete his goal of drawing the final borders by 2010.

In the words of abc News, “a division of Jerusalem looks realistic for the first time,” and this plan represents “a sea change in the thinking of most Israelis” (May 4; emphasis ours throughout).

“It seems the Palestinians could get East Jerusalem, minus the Temple Mount, without a fight,” Mr. Flurry wrote. However, based on biblical prophecies describing Jerusalem’s division, he concluded that the Palestinians would take portions of the city by force—specifically the Temple Mount.

Interesting, because this plan for Jewish evacuation of East Jerusalem does not include the Old City—which contains shrines sacred to Jews, Muslims and Christians, one of which is the famous Temple Mount.

Mr. Flurry’s article was based on a prophecy in Zechariah 14:1-2, which shows half of Jerusalem going into captivity—“suggesting some violence in the process,” he wrote.

So even with the plan to divide—excuse us, share—Jerusalem, expect the Palestinians to be, at the very least, unimpressed, and at the worst, incensed. This unilateral withdrawal will give them only a fraction of what they want and absolutely nothing of the sites they have no interest in “sharing” with Jews.

It has been no secret that Olmert, mayor of Jerusalem for 10 years, has had the slicing up of Jerusalem on his mind as a viable path toward peace. Back in June 2004, he told the Jerusalem Post, “Jerusalem is dear to me, but we shouldn’t lose a sense of proportion.”

Since then, as the idea has picked up steam, one politician blasted Olmert’s Kadima party in March, “saying party candidates who expressed readiness to negotiate handing over eastern Jerusalem to the Palestinians are opening up a ‘Pandora’s Box’ that would lead to ‘Hamas taking over the Temple Mount.’”

Again, as Mr. Flurry said, “It seems the Palestinians could get East Jerusalem, minus the Temple Mount, without a fight.” Continuing with the quote: “Zechariah’s prophecy implies that there will be an impasse over the Temple Mount—which the Palestinians ‘resolve’ by taking East Jerusalem by force.

Now, as long as we are discussing predictions, it is only fair to note that Mr. Flurry also stated in this article that Israel’s conservatives would likely gain control of the government in the March elections. He said this type of government would “act with more caution” in dealing with the Hamas-led Palestinian government, which would “bring the crisis to a head much more quickly.” And that the “conservatives … have a stronger will to fight for the land they believe belongs to the Jews”—hence making East Jerusalem’s fall all the more bloody. He also said, right after that statement: “However it happens,half of Jerusalem is going to be lost! I believe that will include the Temple Mount.”

It turned out that—despite the Hamas terrorist organization being elected to govern the Palestinians—the Israelis did not elect a conservative. Their choosing the defeatist Olmert demonstrates an even greater collapse of national will than we anticipated. Still, even Israel’s new battle-weary administration considers the holy sites—particularly the Temple Mount—non-negotiable. Olmert told the Jerusalem Post that Israel would “‘absolutely’ retain full Israeli control over the Temple Mount and the Mount of Olives.”

It is not difficult to see how this type of administration could still bring the impasse over East Jerusalem to a head very quickly: Essentially it is demonstrating itself willing to tease Palestinians with the idea of having East Jerusalem without giving them what they really want. This tactic—ostensibly for the purpose of peace—could rally the Arabs, now governed by terrorists, into a war-like frenzy.

As Mr. Flurry said, “God’s prophetic Word is 100 percent reliable. His reputation is on the line. His Word never fails.”

What we are seeing in Jerusalem is prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes! Half of Jerusalem falling is only the first stage of Jerusalem’s total destruction.

And this destruction will not affect only the Jews in the Middle East. Jerusalem’s fall has direct implications for the entire world. It will be accompanied by the fall of America and Britain (Hosea 5:5; see our free booklet on Hosea). As Mr. Flurry wrote, “Jerusalem is like the thermometer in those three nations today.”

The fall of this half of Jerusalem will certainly bring tremendous world attention. Don’t forget the Catholic Church’s claim on Jerusalem. The Bible says that a “king of the north” (Daniel 11:40-41; i.e., a resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire) will enter (peaceably) into the glorious land. Christ described this as “Jerusalem compassed with armies,” and told us that it was a sign that the city was about to be “trodden down of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:20-24).

But there is extremely good news too. Mr. Flurry explained, “When half of Jerusalem falls, it starts a chain reaction of events—an avalanche of crises—that leads directly to Jesus Christ’s Second Coming!” You can read that, as well, in Zechariah 14. When you see half of Jerusalem fall, know that only shortly thereafter Jesus Christ’s feet will stand on the Mount of Olives!

He will bring peace once and for all to this blood-soaked city. No place on Earth is more important to watch!

For more information, request our free booklet Jerusalem in Prophecy.

America Beaten in Brain Game

America Beaten in Brain Game

Index Open

At a recent international computing competition, teams from the United States showed themselves to be “the worst of the best of the best.” Here’s why this is important news.

Prepare to be shocked: America was just skunked in a world computer-programming contest. This is worse news for a prosperous and powerful America than it may first appear.

In April, whiz kids from across the globe gathered at the Hilton Palacio del Rio in San Antonio, Tex., for the 2006 annual acm International Collegiate Programming contest, sponsored by ibm. According to the Baylor University website dedicated to the event, “The contest pits teams of three university students against eight or more complex, real-world problems, with a grueling five-hour deadline. Huddled around a single computer, competitors race against the clock in a battle of logic, strategy and mental endurance.

“Teammates collaborate to rank the difficulty of the problems, deduce the requirements, design test beds, and build software systems that solve the problems under the intense scrutiny of expert judges. For a well-versed computer science student, some of the problems require precision only. Others require a knowledge and understanding of advanced algorithms. Still others are simply too hard to solve—except, of course, for the world’s brightest problem-solvers” (ibid.).

The “world’s brightest problem-solvers” included university students from all around the world. In fact, 83 teams were selected from 5,606 teams representing 1,733 universities from 84 countries. Some prestigious American universities were among the 83, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (mit), Princeton, DePaul University, California Institute of Technology, and Duke University.

How did the American universities fair at this battle of the brainiest?

“We’re the worst of the best of the best,” answered Matt Edwards in response to Duke coach Owen Astrachan’s attempts to encourage the team after its dismal honorable-mention finish (Business Week,May 1).

Worst of the best of the best?

Edwards is right. Except for mit, ranking eighth place, only four other American teams made the top 50. The top-10 was dominated by teams from Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia. In fact, Russia had five top-place finishers.

“Until the late 1990s, U.S. teams dominated these contests,” wrote Business Week in its May 1 commentary about America’s poor showing at the contest. “But the tide has turned. Last year not one was in the top dozen” (emphasis ours throughout). The tide they are referring to is Eastern European and Asian schools dominating the global tech industry. “China and India, the new global tech powerhouses, are fueled by 900,000 engineering graduates of all types each year, more than triple the number of U.S. grads” (ibid.).

This, then, is the harbinger: “‘If our talent base weakens, our lead in technology, business, and economics will fade faster than any of us can imagine,’ warns Richard Florida, a professor at George Mason University and author of The Flight of the Creative Class” (ibid.).

As Business Week aptly points out, software programmers are the roots of a modern information-based economy. But to get those roots, you need to plant some seeds, and this is where America is falling well short. The Labor Department forecasts that “computer/math scientist” jobs will increase 40 percent, from 2.5 million in 2002 to 3.5 million in 2012, but universities are not keeping up with demand. According to Business Week, a 2005 survey of freshmen showed that just 1.1 percent planned to major in computer sciences, down from a paltry 3.7 percent in 2000.

This complacency has left America teetering on the precipice of becoming last-place finishers among the elite of the world. How did Matt Edwards put it? “The worst of the best of the best.”

Can America turn the tide of this complacency? Of course, the answer is yes. But the other question that must be asked is, will America turn the tide of this complacency? The answer to this question is much more unsettling.

While the U.S. export of information technology is still growing, the leadership position is gone—and it isn’t coming back. In accordance with biblical prophecy, the United States is losing its superpower status in one area after another, continually being overtaken by Russia, China and the European Union. The trouble is, America thinks being good is good enough. It’s not. Good is the enemy of great.

Russia’s Saratov State University won this year’s competition on the anniversary date of Yuri Gagarin’s historic 1961 voyage into space. It was this feat of science that Business Week suggests touched off America’s quest for scientific dominance, dominance it held for almost 50 years. “Gagarin’s rocket ride shocked Americans out of their postwar complacency, sparking a national quest for tech superiority that led to such breakthroughs as the moon landing and the microchip. A trouncing in a programming contest doesn’t inspire the same kind of response today. Truthfully, Americans just don‘t feel threatened enough to exert the effort” (ibid.).

It is clear that America’s technology leadership position is gone. And as Richard Florida stated, this an indication of the direction in which America’s economy and way of life is going. It is an issue, if not solved, that has the potential to touch all of our lives.

China Befriends Oil-Rich Saudis; U.S. Pays at Pump

China Befriends Oil-Rich Saudis; U.S. Pays at Pump


America is losing global influence. The first place Americans will feel it is in their pocketbook.

“Gas Prices Soar at the Pump” is a headline increasingly common across America. Rising gasoline prices are a reality many Americans must now face—and it may not improve anytime soon.

According to Alan Gains, chief executive officer of Houston-based Dune Energy and a former top energy analyst, Americans could easily see $5 a gallon gas this summer. Gains correctly predicted the rise in gas from under $3 to $4 several months before it occurred.

Mr. Gains chronicles a list of factors that he says could produce $90 to $100 oil per barrel—up from the current $70 price. These factors include “shortage of gasoline inventories, a really hot summer, supply disruptions arising from troubles in Iran and Nigeria, or another serious hurricane in the Gulf, 13 percent of whose production is [still] offline” (New York Sun,April 24). But perhaps the most significant factor behind the general rise in oil prices is increasing demand from Asia—primarily China.

In February, China’s net oil imports soared 28 percent. In March, Chinese crude oil imports were up a comparatively smaller, but still huge 10.9 percent year over year. China has become the world’s second-largest oil consumer, after the United States. Its increasing appetite for oil has ignited a global resource race with America to secure sources of supply, and this is causing tension between the two.

As Asian demand for oil has increased, Middle Eastern reliance on American oil consumption has fallen. Consequently, America’s influence within the Middle East and Saudi Arabia in particular has been eroding. If these trends continue, America will reach the point where it needs Middle Eastern oil more than the Middle East needs U.S. money.

Perhaps nothing illustrates the growing tensions over oil between China and America better than the less-than-open-armed reception Chinese President Hu Jintao was given on his April visit to the United States—in comparison to his royal treatment on visits to Saudi Arabia and Nigeria the same month.

President Hu’s recent visits to Saudi Arabia—China’s second-largest supplier of crude oil—and Nigeria—the top African oil producer—underscored China’s increasing demand for oil and its growing relationships with oil-exporting countries. Also, Saudi Arabia’s tense attitude toward the United States was clear.

In a speech before Saudi Arabia’s legislature on April 23, President Hu—only the second foreign leader ever invited to address the Saudi assembly—pledged to help stabilize the Middle East, saying that “China is ready to work with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to support peace and growth in the Middle East and build a harmonious world that enjoys constant peace and prosperity.”

According to Times Online, “Mr. Hu’s remarks were seen as a direct challenge to the United States, which for the past half century has dominated security and diplomacy in the region” (April 24).

China and Saudi Arabia have found the basis for a friendship in their shared disdain for Western meddling in their internal affairs. China resents American criticism over its human rights record; for Saudi Arabia, both human rights and Islamism issues are cooling its relationship with the U.S.

In his speech to the Saudi legislature, Hu received a standing ovation for saying the West should not “hurl false accusations against the internal affairs of other countries, let alone blame a specific civilization, people or religion for causing problems and conflicts in the world.” A standing ovation by the Saudi assembly for anti-U.S. remarks doesn’t bode well for America’s relationship with the world’s largest oil-producing nation.

After Hu’s trip to Saudi Arabia, he was welcomed to Nigeria by President Olusegun Obasanjo with pomp and ceremony, signifying the growing Sino-Nigerian strategic partnership. An example of this developing relationship is the Chinese state-controlled oil company cnooc’s $2.3 billion investment to develop a Nigerian off-shore oil field, announced in January. cnooc is the same company the U.S. government blocked from purchasing U.S.-based oil company Unocal last year.

In stark contrast to the Chinese president’s warm reception in both Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, Hu’s latest visit to America was characterized by a snub and a series of blunders. The Seattle Times reported that the “protocol-obsessed Chinese leader suffered a day full of indignities—some intentional, others just careless” (April 24).

Upon arrival in America, Hu Jintao received a 21-gun-salute, but not an official state reception. He did not even receive an official state dinner, but was granted only a “working lunch” with the president. As reported by Business Week, “Hu hosted a state banquet last year when Bush visited Beijing. To Chinese leaders, the U.S. lack of reciprocity is more than a matter of broken protocol …. It is seen as a slap in Hu’s face” (April 13).

America’s choice of reception honors for the Chinese president is even more surprising given the fact that China is the second-largest foreign holder of U.S. debt and has been one America’s largest financers in recent years.

Another potential offense occurred when the official announcer said the band would play the “national anthem of the Republic of China”—the official name of Taiwan. Then there was the protestor at the press conference who was allowed to shout accusations at Hu for three minutes before being escorted away.

Why the huge contrast between how China was received by the U.S. and the warm receptions Saudi Arabia and Nigeria gave? The answer is largely that China’s rapid growth has put it in direct competition with the U.S. for many resources—including oil. Additionally, many Middle East oil producers are countries dominated by Muslim populations that increasingly see the U.S. as the enemy, and are thus seeking allies elsewhere. China, which desperately needs oil and conveniently is a UN Security Council veto holder, makes an ideal partner for these nations.

As these types of relationships develop, America will probably continue to lose influence in the oil-rich Middle East and resource-rich Africa.

What does this mean for Americans? It means that as China continues to secure oil supplies, oil prices are probably going to keep going up.

Most of us know that gasoline is derived from crude oil, so we can probably expect higher gasoline costs. But less than half of each barrel of oil imported into the U.S. is used for this purpose. In the form of petrochemicals, oil is a key ingredient in thousands of other products. Everything from radios and shampoo bottles to soft contact lenses and garbage bags are made with oil, in the form of plastics.

The modern world in its work and leisure relies very heavily on oil. As the saying goes, oil makes the “world go round.” But as the price of oil goes up, the grease that keeps the world spinning starts to cost more—and so will all the things that are manufactured from it.

In other words, higher oil prices could cause inflation and rising consumer prices—not a good thing for the U.S. economy, which has become so dependent on consumer spending.

For more information on the probability of coming resource wars and the implications for America, see our article “The Battleground” and the March 2006 issue of the Trumpet.

Senior Vatican Official Criticizes “High-Level Leaders”

Senior Vatican Official Criticizes “High-Level Leaders”

Pius XII’s questionable wartime legacy won’t go away.

Speaking at a conference last week at Tel Aviv University on the actions of the Roman Catholic Church during the Holocaust, Pierbattista Pizzaballa, a senior Vatican official, issued thinly disguised criticisms of the World War ii pope, Pius xii, throwing another log on the raging fire that is the debate over whether to beatify him.

Addressing gathered delegates, Pizzaballa, custos of the Holy Land, openly criticized “church leaders, including those of the highest level, who did not adopt a courageous stand in the evangelical spirit in the face of the Nazi regime” (Haaretz,April 27). Dr. Simcha Epstein, of the Hebrew University’s Vidal Sassoon Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, said it was clear the phrase “high-level leaders” was a veiled reference to Pius xii.

It was this kind of unprecedented comment that, according to a report by Haaretz on April 28, “did not disappoint those who expected to hear strong, straightforward statements.”

“Jewish organizations and historians for years have been at the forefront of a struggle against the Vatican initiative to beatify Pius due to his inaction during the Holocaust,” Haaretz reported (op. cit.). When Pope Benedict xvi came along, Jerusalem’s hope was that he would stop the beatification process initiated by Pope John Paul ii. But that hope was in vain.

Pizzaballa’s statements, however, once again raised expectations that perhaps the Vatican was taking the widespread criticism of its push to beatify Pius xii seriously, and that his road to sainthood would be halted. But no.

Rabbi David Rosen, member of the Permanent Bilateral Working Commission of the State of Israel and the Vatican, stated that Pizzaballa is not offering any dramatic or new insight into the Vatican’s position toward Pius’s road to sainthood, but rather that his “attitude is that of a man who is aware of Jewish and Israeli sensitivities, and it is therefore more nuanced than the official position; however, it does not reflect a change in the official stance” (ibid.).

Pius xii, the man at the center of the storm, has been accused of remaining silent and turning his head the other way while millions died. In 1999, John Paul ii made a proposal to canonize the wartime pope. Jewish leaders are bitterly opposed to such a move. Questions concerning the Vatican’s responsibility with regard to the persecution of the Jews came into sharp focus in the 1990s.

Catholic historian John Cornwell’s book Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius xii, published in 1999, shows that prior to his election as pope, Pius xii, as the Vatican representative in pre-war Berlin and then as its secretary of state, helped stamp out opposition to Nazism in the German church. He also abandoned Catholic political parties opposed to Hitler.

Cornwell then charges Pius xii of failing to use his influence in favor of the Jews. The pope did have access to information about Hitler’s extensive killing of Jews. He mildly objected to their persecution rather late in the game, but during his objection didn’t even mention the Jews by name. Pius xii has also been criticized by other historians for failing to warn the Jewish community in Rome before their roundup.

Cornwell (a Catholic himself) wrote in Hitler’s Pope, “Several years ago I was at a dinner with a group of postgraduate students, some of whom were Catholics. The topic of the papacy was broached, and the party got contentious. A young woman asserted that she found it difficult to understand how any right-minded person today could be a Catholic, since the church had sided with the most pernicious right-wing leaders of the century—Franco, Salazar, Mussolini, Hitler. … Then the topic of Eugenio Pacelli—Pius xii, the wartime pope—was raised, and how he had not done enough to save the Jews from the death camps.

“In common with many Catholics of my generation, I was only too familiar with that allegation. … I was convinced that if his full story were told, Pius xii’s pontificate would be vindicated. Hence I decided to write a book that would satisfy a broad spectrum of readers old and young, Catholics and non-Catholics alike who continue to raise questions about the role of the papacy in the history of the 20th century. …

“I applied for access to crucial material in Rome, reassuring those who had charge of the appropriate archives that I was on the side of my subject. Acting in good faith, two key activists gave me generous access to unseen material: depositions under oath gathered 30 years ago for Pacelli’s beatification, and also documents in the office of the Vatican Secretariat of State. At the same time, I started to draw together, critically, the huge circuit of scholarship relating to Pacelli’s activities during the 1920s and 1930s in Germany, works published during the past 20 years but mainly inaccessible to a general readership.

By the middle of 1997, nearing the end of my research, I found myself in a state I can only describe as moral shock. The material I had gathered, taking the more extensive view of Pacelli’s life, amounted not to an exoneration but to a wider indictment. Spanning Pacelli’s career from the beginning of the century, my research told the story of a bid for unprecedented papal power that by 1933 had drawn the Catholic Church into complicity with the darkest forces of the era. I found evidence, moreover, that from an early stage in his career Pacelli betrayed an undeniable antipathy toward the Jews, and that his diplomacy in Germany in the 1930s had resulted in the betrayal of Catholic political associations that might have challenged Hitler’s regime and thwarted the Final Solution” (emphasis ours).

It is for these reasons, and others, that the proposed beatification of Pius xii has come under close scrutiny and outright resistance from various groups. But still, the Vatican refuses to back down, preferring to leave the general public and the Jews wondering: If Pacelli is the model of Catholic leadership, and with his record meriting a path to Catholic sainthood, has the Vatican learned any lessons from its wartime behavior toward Germany, Hitler and the Holocaust, or should we expect history to repeat itself because lessons have not been learned?

Answering this question must be a priority.

EU-Wide Criminal Law Worries UK

EU-Wide Criminal Law Worries UK


The establishment of “European” crimes has countries like Britain questioning whether the EU is going too far in trumping national sovereignty.

For years, the European Union has been defined by a daunting pile of legislation created by men and women who have not been elected to their posts and, thus, hold no accountability to European citizens.

As the EU slides down this slippery slope, we see the next logical step: introducing criminal law Union-wide: “Brussels announced the first EU-wide criminal sanction [sentence] yesterday, requiring every member country to imprison organized counterfeiters for four years and fine them up to €300,000” (Times Online, April 27).

Franco Frattini, one of those lawmakers unaccountable to anyone, said that counterfeiting “was so serious that it had to be made a European crime” (ibid.).

If approved, this will “mark the first time that a criminal law has been introduced in Britain that has not come from the Houses of Parliament and that Parliament will have no power to block” (ibid., emphasis ours throughout).

Though it would make sense that in order for Europe to function as a true Union it needs laws that supercede national sovereignty and government that can enforce said laws, the legislation will be cause for great debate among states not willing to give up their sovereignty—like Britain, which has never wholeheartedly set its hand to the plow when it came to integrating with Europe.

London says it must retain the right to determine how to punish its citizens: “We have very serious concerns about the criminal penalties,” one official said. “We also have long-standing concerns about the need for legislation on this at a European level” (ibid.).

One British mep said, “I am very, very disturbed by it. Criminal law has to remain under the control of nation states. The penalties—deciding when people go to prison—have got to be dealt with by our own legislators.”

What’s Britain to do? If a “qualified majority” vote in favor of the legislation, Britain will have no choice but to implement the law. The alternative would be that Britain decides enough is enough and that it must excuse itself from the EU.

Britain knows, as logic would also tell us, that this type of authority from the EU will not stop with sentencing counterfeiters. Last September, the European Court of Justice decided it was necessary for the EU to have the right to impose criminal laws on member states in order to uphold EU legislation on fighting pollution. “The European Commission has insisted that the principle applies across all policies, and identified seven areas in which it might try to introduce European crimes” (ibid.).

The Trumpet has been stating for years, based on key Bible prophecies, that Britain ultimately will not be a part of a united Europe. It has been the most vocal of nations not wanting to give up sovereignty to a supranational Union. And, whether it is kicked out for not abiding to certain European rules, or it excuses itself to maintain national sovereignty, we know Britain’s fate in the greater European scheme.

For more, read our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. For more on where Europe is headed as a power, see “Is a World Dictator About to Appear?” from our February 2000 issue.

EU Elite More Pro-Nuclear Than Ever

EU Elite More Pro-Nuclear Than Ever


Declaring the unthinkable

Leading voices in Europe dared to think, and to state, the unthinkable on the very anniversary of the worst nuclear disaster in Europe’s history. reported, “The EU political elite is more pro-nuclear than ever before according to nuclear industry lobbyists, with leading meps urging people not to use the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl to bash EU nuclear expansion plans. ‘I had a meeting at a very high level in the European Parliament and European Commission last night [April 25] and the clear message was the present commission is as friendly to nuclear power as never before,’ Foratom [European Atomic Forum] chief Peter Haug told EUobserver on Wednesday …” (April 26).

Ironically, the same day just 20 years ago, an atomic reactor exploded at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, scattering radioactive material as far west as Ireland. An area the size of Belgium remains contaminated today.

“The World Health Organization (who) says the disaster killed 4,000 people but ngo Greenpeace puts the figure at closer to 90,000 while accusing pro-nuclear elements in the UN of leaning on the who” (ibid.).

Far from leaning away from further development of nuclear capability, European Union nations are increasingly taking a stance in favor of the use of nuclear energy for power generation purposes. That such a move also sends a signal of enhanced capability for the proliferation of nuclear weapons is the largely unspoken part of this equation.

Britain, France, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech republic and Slovakia all plan to boost nuclear capacity. In addition, EU candidate nations Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey have expressed their commitment to ongoing development of their nuclear capability. The EU’s neighboring countries of Russia and Ukraine are also slated to enhance their use of nuclear power.

Peter Haug and Dutch energy experts also predict, based on certain noises being made by the main party in Germany’s coalition government, that Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union will scrap plans to phase out nuclear power made previously by a socialist-led government.

“There will be no early closures of nuclear plants in Germany,” Mr. Haug said (ibid.).

German conservative Hans-Gert Pottering had the gall to declare that the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe “should not be used as a political instrument against nuclear power as such” (ibid.).

Read between the lines: Clearly, what is still fresh in these politicians minds is the hiccup caused by Russia this past winter when Russian energy giant Gazprom temporarily reduced supplies to Europe during an argument with Ukraine over price hikes. Ever since, the argument for alternative sources of energy has been a hot potato in the EU. Add this together with the current scare in Europe concerning the consequences of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and you have the ideal moment presented to hawks within the EU who seek to add to the EU’s already globally dominant trade position an equally dominant military presence. Without this, the EU’s expressed desire to become a countervailing global presence to offset the imbalance presented by the singular superpower status of the U.S. will be so much pie in the sky.

Watch for the nuclear debate to heat up within the EU and to coalesce in agreement for the development of EU nuclear power status.