The Secret Nazis

“Even before the end of the war, I revealed to you the Nazi plans for a Nazi underground movement, to go underground as a secret organization the very moment they lost the war ….” —Herbert W. Armstrong, 1948
From the February 2007 Trumpet Print Edition

“The keynote of what lies in the German mind today was voiced in 1950. At that time, according to T.H. Teten’s book Germany Plots With the Kremlin, Dr. Konrad Adenauer, then chancellor of Germany, caused much embarrassment by leading a German crowd in singing ‘Deutschland über Alles’—‘Germany above all others’—in the presence of Allied representatives” (Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, Lesson 3, 1955).

Quite a sentiment, because at that time the German nation lay in rubble. Prior to the D-Day landings at Normandy on June 6, 1944, many in the German high command knew that their defeat was only a matter of time. German destiny, however, would not be thwarted. A plan was already in place that out of defeat would rise a new nation.

Herbert W. Armstrong revealed that plan to the world—before Germany was destroyed—believe it or not!

Mr. Armstrong wrote, “Even before the end of this war, I revealed to you the Nazi plans for a Nazi underground movement, to go underground as a secret organization the very moment they lost the war—to lay low a few years during Allied and Russian military occupation, then to come forth when least expected,restore Germany to power, and go on to finally accomplish their aims in a World Wariii (Plain Truth, September 1948).

He also wrote, “[A]s certainly as we restore Western Europe to economic prosperity, and then to military power, a successor to Hitler will emerge, gain control of this power through a ‘United States of Europe,’ which we [the United States] also are encouraging, and we shall then wake up, too late, to realize we shall have restored our fascist enemy to power to destroy us!” (ibid., November 1948).

Notice, he made four specific statements, three of which were: Nazi Germany would go underground; Germany would emerge after Allied and Russian occupation; and it would rise again to military power. These events have now all happened—and in that order.

Did anyone else perceive what future events would bring? No, not even the Germans themselves. Notice a speech given by German General von Stuelpnagel in 1944: “No defeat is final. Defeats are simply lessons to be learned in preparation for the next and greater attack.” He went on to say, “In the next world war, which should take place within 25 years, the same mistake should not be made” (Correspondence Course, op. cit.).

“Within 25 years” would have put their hoped-for reappearance in the year 1969. According to him, the German underground was focused on the time period of 1969-1972. Why could that not happen? Because of Mr. Armstrong’s statement that this movement would “come forth when least expected” after Allied and Russian occupation had ended. When did that end? Not in 1969, or 1972, but in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the removal of Russian occupying forces!

Victim Pensions

By August of 1944, Nazi Party officials knew that the war was lost. At that time the provisional plan for the rebirth of Germany, conceived in the early days of the war, began to be put into action. That plan included the well-documented rush to secret destinations by surviving supporters of the Third Reich. The Nazis went underground, just as Mr. Armstrong said they would.

Following the surrender of Germany, attempts were made to locate escaped Nazis who had now been shuttled to other parts of the world. By the spring of 1946, only 85,000 of 200,000 industrial and Gestapo leaders had been arrested. Further, the search for Nazi looted gold—gold transferred through the Bank of International Settlements—began in earnest.

In his book Nazi Gold, Tom Bower wrote, “In early January 1945, as new intercepts revealed that Swiss banks, especially Crédit Suisse, were regularly transferring German loot and gold to Argentina, new drafts of the Safehaven program outlined the crusaders’ intention to surround, intimidate and virtually invade neutral countries—especially Switzerland—to root out the [underground] Germans and their loot.”

Where did the Nazis go? That secret is known. According to an amazing bit of legislation, many of them can be traced. We can trace them through their “victim” pensions. “Billions of [Deutsche] marks from German taxpayers [have been] paid to Nazi war criminals and are called ‘victim’ pensions. A spokesman for the German Ministry of Labor confirmed that additional assistance money is being spent on war criminals but claimed that nothing could be changed because of constitutional reasons” (The Panorama Report,ard German television network, Jan. 30, 1997).

The report continued, “The Nazi war criminals receive, in addition to their regular pensions, ‘victim’ pensions, according to the German ‘Social Compensation and Assistance to War Victims’ law (bvg). Last year alone, from Federal and Lander budgets, almost 13 billion marks were currently paid to over 1.1 million ‘victim’ pensioners. To qualify for the ‘victim’ pension, one must have been injured as a result of war service. Because no one is excluded from the bvg, each war criminal who applies is granted a ‘victim’ pension if they can simply prove a war injury.

Panorama found out that worldwide, numerous Nazi war criminals today receive monthly payments between 100 and several thousand marks from German taxpayers. The well-respected German military historian Gerhard Schreiber estimates the number of war criminals receiving these extra payments from the German government at 50,000.” News sources claim those 50,000 are former members of Hitler’s elite SS.

Follow the Money

How the underground movement was funded is another story fresh in today’s news. It was funded primarily by the gold stolen during Nazi Germany’s conquests.

Following the surrender of Germany, according to author Charles Higham, “Senior Nazi Party officials … urged that the new strategy was to survive and win the peace. Large sums of money should be sent abroad in secret in the care of sympathetic bankers and industrialists. Among the named Swiss banks were the Basler Handelsbank and Credit Suisse. Eventually, according to the plan, that money would be used to finance the Nazi Party’s attempt to build a new empire.

“On a bright May morning in 1944, while young Americans were dying on the Italian beachheads, [the] president of the Nazi-controlled Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, arrived at his office to preside over the fourth annual meeting in time of war. This polished American gentleman sat down with his German, Japanese, Italian, British and American executive staff to discuss such important matters as the $378 million in gold which had been sent to the bank by the Nazi government after Pearl Harbor for use by its leaders after the war” (Trading With the Enemy; emphasis mine).

That gold had been looted from the national banks of Austria, Holland, Belgium and Czechoslovakia, or melted down from the Reichsbank holdings of the teeth fillings, spectacle frames, cigarette cases and lighters of murdered Jews.

What areas of the world constitute the “underground”? We only have to follow the money trail to answer that question. “Estimated numbers of former Nazis getting pensions are: 601 in Australia, 1,115 in Austria, 128 in Argentina, 324 in Belgium, 196 in Brazil, 1,882 in Canada, 1,010 in Croatia, 459 in England, 810 in France, 152 in Italy, 1,014 in Romania, 2,380 in Slovenia, 152 in South Africa, 3,377 in the U.S.” (The Panorama Report, op. cit.).

That’s just over a third of the estimated 50,000 war criminals receiving payments.

The fact is, a man under the inspiration of God saw those events coming decades ago, and told the world. How could Herbert W. Armstrong reveal events which would come to pass in the future? Did he possess Allied classified information? Was it merely an unusual “grasp” of world affairs? No, it was not. The military and political systems of the world did not possess this knowledge. The truth is, he simply believed that Almighty God meant what He said; that the Bible was His Word. He understood that the prophecies in the Bible were for our peoples today, and that they would come to pass.

The Phoenix

In the opera Parsifal, Richard Wagner wrote, “By the power of that stone the phoenix burns to ashes, but the ashes give him life again. Thus does the phoenix molt and change its plumage, which afterward is bright and shining and as lovely as before.” Just as that mythological bird, the Germany once in ashes has reappeared and is heading the powerful consortium of nations called the European Union.

Now only the fourth statement Mr. Armstrong made is still waiting to happen. That statement was, “[A] successor to Hitler will emerge, [and] gain control of this power ….” That man is probably somewhere on the political scene right now!

General Stuelpnagel stated, “In the next world war … the same mistake should not be made. The principal adversary will be the United States, and the entire effort must be concentrated against this country from the beginning …. Our defeat in the present war need not be considered except as an incident in the triumphal march of Germany toward conquest of the world—Deutschland über alles! (Correspondence Course, op. cit.).

That march has begun. On May 26, 1998, German officer cadets took part in unprecedented training exercises with the Israeli army. Writing about this historic event, bbc Middle East correspondent Lyse Doucet said, “For the German soldiers these exercises are a valuable opportunity for a peace-time army to train with a force engaged in war.”

In the same bbc report, Christian Muth, of the German Army, was reported as saying, “The point of coming here is not to overcome the past, because you can’t overcome something that’s already happened. The point of coming here is to show that we are a new generation—that we are fully aware of the past and will prevent it from happening again.”

The German Army does not fully realize its future role in world affairs at this time. But we will soon learn that when its fighting forces say, “We are fully aware of the past and will prevent it from happening again,” it means they remember the defeat of past wars, and why. They will not be defeated next time!

Hitler revealed the carefully laid German military plan to rule the world in his thesis Mein Kampf. He said Germany must first defeat the West in order to have a free hand for the Drang nach Osten—the march toward the East.

As God revealed to Mr. Armstrong, after losing World War ii the Nazis went underground. The fall of the Berlin Wall has allowed Germany to reappear even stronger than before. It will continue to grow into the most powerful economic and military machine this world has ever seen—the last revival of the Holy Roman Empire. A successor to Hitler is about to appear. Then, linked with a future false prophet, this power, composed of 10 nations—referred to in Scripture as “the beast”—will plunge this world into the most horrific global genocide ever witnessed by mankind.

Then the world will know that a prophet has been among them.

B-2 Technology Not So Stealth

From the February 2007 Trumpet Print Edition

Classified b-2 Stealth bomber technology has been leaked to China, say U.S. officials. A Hawaii-based spy allegedly obtained critical technology that will allow Beijing to copy and counter one of America’s most advanced weapons systems. Investigation reveals that U.S. Stealth technology may have been leaking since 1999.

In a Nov. 15, 2006, grand jury indictment, Indian-born engineer Noshir Gowadia was charged with 18 counts of spying. Besides providing China with classified technology relating to the b-2’s engine exhaust system, he was also charged with several other counts of selling top-secret information.

Justice Department officials claim that Gowadia was paid approximately $2 million for the b-2 secrets. If true, China got a true bargain—paying pennies on the dollar for technology that took many years and likely cost hundreds of millions or more to develop.

U.S. experts familiar with the case say “the compromise of the b-2 technology is extremely damaging because it will give China key secrets on the bomber” (Washington Times, Nov. 23, 2006).

b-2 bombers are part of what the Pentagon calls its “hedge” strategy: to have forces in position and with the ability to swiftly defeat China in any future conflict. China’s procurement of this technology severely compromises that strategy.

Gowadia is also accused of providing China with extensive technical assistance to help it develop and test a radar-evading Stealth cruise missile, and also showing China how to modify the cruise missile to lock on to U.S. air-to-air missiles.

If what prosecutors say is true, the Stealth genie may be out of the bottle. Gowadia is also charged with divulging “secret” and “top secret” U.S. Stealth technology-related data pertaining to the th-98 Eurocopter and other foreign commercial aircraft to Germany, Switzerland and Israel between 2002 and 2004. All told, he is accused of offering classified defense information to as many as eight nations.

Earlier last year, another espionage case involving China occurred where two brothers (Chi and Tai Mak) were accused of being unregistered agents for the Chinese. Authorities accused the Mak family of trying to pass on restricted naval warship technology concerning the advanced ddx destroyer.

As one defense official pointed out, commenting on the Gowadia case, these recent incidents illustrate “China’s intelligence efforts to counter key weapons systems that give the United States strategic advantages over Chinese forces” (ibid.).

Remember

Decades of accuracy in global forecasting
From the February 2007 Trumpet Print Edition

Many of our readers, upon picking up their first copy of the Trumpet, exclaim how they recognize the same message the Plain Truth carried for 52 years under the direction of its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong. Subscribers even point to similarities between our style of writing and presentation compared to the Plain Truth in its heyday.

There is a reason for this—and it will be made plain in this special issue of the Trumpet. In this issue, we look back at our roots. Some of our readers are familiar with this history—most are not.

This issue will be a real eye-opener. The sheer number of prophetic statements made by Mr. Armstrong and his editorial team, and their accuracy, will astound you.

To begin this project, a team of Trumpet staffers divided up all the Plain Truths on hand and began scouring every article, looking for bold predictions. When finished, we copied the highlighted pages and sorted them into four main subjects: Europe; the United States and Britain; the Middle East; and Asia. Our News Bureau then helped us match the prophetic statements we found in the Plain Truth with what actually happened, or is now happening.

This issue is the fruit of that labor. Originally, we had planned to increase the size of this special edition by 16 pages. But two days before our deadline, we added another four just to fit everything in! This issue is by no means exhaustive. But it does pretty well encapsulate what the Plain Truth was about for more than 50 years.

Before we begin, however, let’s bring our newer readers up to speed. You might wonder what happened to the Plain Truth. One example, in particular, will explain.

For more than five decades under Mr. Armstrong’s leadership, year in and year out the Plain Truth had powerfully and consistently shouted a warning in print about the revival and unification of Germany. It proclaimed that Germany would be the dominant force behind a powerful union of European nation-states that would surpass the Russian bloc and even Britain and America in power and hegemony. Imagine predicting that when Germany lay in rubble after World War ii. That’s what the Plain Truth did.

Mr. Armstrong did not live to see the Berlin Wall breached on Nov. 9, 1989, or Germany unite on October 3 a year later. By that time, however, an amazing thing had occurred—those who took over publishing the Plain Truth after Mr. Armstrong’s death in 1986 had totally changed its editorial policy!

Here is what the publishers of the “new look” Plain Truth said about that Earth-shattering event in 1989: “Following the spectacular news about the opening of the Berlin Wall, we unexpectedly received a call from a news station in Seattle. The news director was well aware of the World Tomorrow program and the fact that for more than 40 years the Church had been predicting the reunification of Europe in some form. He asked for on-air comments about whether the Church believed the opening of the wall was the commencement of end-time prophetic events.

“We responded that it was premature to make statements like that ….

“The news director was disappointed that we would not proclaim this to be the absolute beginning of end-time events, but it was interesting that he did say that what the Church has predicted from the Bible was remarkably close to what appears to be happening” (Worldwide Church of God Pastor General’s Report, Nov. 21, 1989).

To long-time readers of the Plain Truth, such a weak assessment of the dramatic events surrounding the fall of the Berlin Wall was dumbfounding. The magazine had lost its vision, its reason for being! It was fast beginning to deny its editorial heritage of forecasting events boldly and outspokenly—based on the foundation of “a more sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1:19). Readership dropped off quickly. Soon the publishers were facing a financial crisis as subscribers’ donations disappeared. Readers and supporters of Mr. Armstrong’s flagship magazine decamped in droves.

At one time, those readers had a vision—a vision of reality that gave them a confidence in the future. Millions of Plain Truth readers who saw the Berlin Wall tumbling down via television news combed the pages of the Plain Truth in vain, searching for a perspective on the next event that would hasten the rise of the Europower Mr. Armstrong had prophesied.

Many of those former Plain Truth readers are now among the hundreds of thousands who receive this magazine.

In 1990, we started the Trumpet with a shoestring budget, a handful of subscribers and one objective: to pick up where Mr. Armstrong left off.

That’s what we have done.

Britain’s Child Felons

From the February 2007 Trumpet Print Edition

In Britain, hundreds of pre-teens are being charged with crimes including robbery, assaulting a police officer and even rape. The Nov. 12, 2006, Times cited 270 cases of 10-year-olds perpetrating major crimes from April 2005 to March of 2006. The Youth Justice Board also reported that nationwide, between 2004 and 2005, violent offences by 10-year-olds rose 33 percent. Worse yet, “Experts say the real number of sexual crimes committed by primary school children may be much higher ….”

Julia Davidson, expert on child crime at Westminster University, said that “a large proportion start offending from as young as 8 or 9.” In one case, an 11-year-old boy raped an 8-year-old girl.

Prepubescent violent crime should force us to ask some serious questions about our society. After all, what will a 10-year-old who has assaulted a police officer do when he’s behind the wheel of a car? Or when he’s old enough to buy alcohol or guns?

More importantly, what is the cause? A March 2006 United Nations report suggested social causes such as inconsistent parenting and school abandonment. The report admitted that the worse a child’s family situation was, the more likely he was to become a repeat offender. Indeed, many families from which children like these are emerging are in an unprecedentedly atrocious state. Those problems are exacerbated by the sickness in society at large, amplified by mass media increasingly infatuated with perversity.

Since the justice system has no way to deal with 10-year-old criminals effectively, and Britain’s family life shows no sign of improving, these juveniles will continue to roam the streets into their teens and 20s; other younger people will follow in their footsteps. Until drastic action is taken, the problem of children ruling over us will grow worse.

The situation uniquely fulfills an end-time prophecy penned by Isaiah: “As for my people, children are their oppressors …” (Isaiah 3:12).

Americans Addicted to the Internet

From the February 2007 Trumpet Print Edition

More than one in eight American adults show signs of Internet addiction, according to a new study. Signs include spending an inordinate amount of time each week on non-work-related Internet use, hiding Internet use from a partner, and using the Internet as a form of escape.

Of more than 2,500 respondents to a phone survey, nearly 14 percent said staying away from the Internet for several days is difficult; nearly 6 percent believe their Internet usage hurts their relationships.

The October 2006 issue of CNS Spectrums: The International Journal of Neuropsychiatric Medicine reported that the typical afflicted person, a college-educated single white male in his 30s, spends around 30 hours a week on non-essential Internet use—over four hours a day—and suffers “significant” problems as a result. That’s a fairly severe definition of addiction; how many Internet users spend less time online yet still exhibit addiction-related qualities?

The study cited a 2002 survey in which six out of 10 American companies had disciplined employees for misusing the Internet, and over 30 percent had fired employees for that reason.

According to the lead author of the study, Elias Aboujaoude, problematic online usage takes many forms. “Not surprisingly, online pornography and, to some degree, online gambling, have received the most attention—but users are as likely to use other sites, including chat rooms, shopping venues and special-interest websites,” Aboujaoude said. “Our survey did not track what specific Internet venues were the most frequented by respondents, but other studies, and our clinical experience, indicate that pornography is just one area of excessive Internet use” (DailyTech, Oct. 18, 2006).

A bbc article quoted Aboujaoude as saying, “The issue is starting to be recognized as a legitimate object of clinical attention, as well as an economic problem, given that a great deal of non-essential Internet use takes place at work” (Oct. 18, 2006).

The Internet has opened up unprecedented resources for research and human connectivity, but, like all technology, it comes with dangers. Scripture enjoins, “Let your moderation be known unto all men” (Philippians 4:5). Allowing ourselves to fritter away hours in worthless—or worse, destructive—pursuits is failing to obey the biblical command to “walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5:15-16).

When America Leaves Iraq …

Americans and Iranians agree: the U.S. should exit Iraq. Here is what will happen when it does.
From the February 2007 Trumpet Print Edition

It is easy to forget how fragile civilization really is.

Sitting in a recliner, belly full, television on, the idea that this might not last hardly enters the mind. The trappings of prosperity are so far removed from the brutal, bloody cruelties of war, the savagery and chaos that have characterized so much of human history, the death-worshiping hatred that is rapidly overtaking whole swaths of the world we inhabit.

It is easy to underestimate an enemy. Clothed in comfort and complacency, it is easy to take him too lightly—his determination, his ferocity, his will, his eagerness to invite death. When such harsh concepts are so foreign, so alien, it is easy to assume his threats are mere bluster.

In the unreality created by hyper-affluence, it is easy to feel untouchable. Easy to believe that simply possessing the strongest military in history is protection enough; that losses are inconsequential; that, should there ever emerge a real danger, the wherewithal to defeat it can be quickly summoned.

These fantasies are luxuries—luxuries born of America’s unparalleled wealth and ease—luxuries that are about to be stripped from us.

America is at war, and it is losing. And it seems to be okay with that.

Though the enemy looks like a many-headed hydra, at its heart is a single nation with ambitions to hasten America’s demise, eliminate Israel, conquer Europe, and preside over a globe-girdling pan-Islamic empire. That nation is Iran.

But America is not fighting Iran—at least, not directly. Today, it is stuck in Iraq. President Bush assessed the situation: “We’re not winning—we’re not losing.” An emerging consensus believes we must get out—as quickly as would be prudent, gracefully if possible, clumsily if necessary. So, perhaps sooner, perhaps later—perhaps not under this president but, if not, then shortly after he leaves—America’s departure from Iraq is inevitable.

While the supposed wisdom in this course of action seems self-evident to many, there is a reason the White House has been so reluctant to evacuate Iraq. Set aside, for a moment, how this act would further trash America’s already battered “superpower” status and the problems this would invite from the four corners of the Earth.

In immediate terms, the day America pulls out is the day it places a crown on Iran’s head: king of the Persian Gulf.

Iran is in a remarkable position. After the U.S., it has far and away the strongest military in the region. Its influence reaches powerfully into Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Israel. It holds the sympathies of Shiite minorities—and even some Sunni majorities—in Arab states region-wide. It has nurtured alliances with global giants in the East and proven itself immune to pressure from the West. In Iraq, it has played its position in a way that reveals its ambition: It will be content with nothing less than, in the words of Dr. George Friedman, “an Iraqi satellite state.” And by all appearances, Iran is going to get what Iran wants. Especially once America leaves.

“We’re not winning—we’re not losing” is only half true when Iraq is viewed in this broader context. After five years of the world’s mightiest military waging a self-declared “war on terrorism,” the world’s premier state sponsor of terrorism is stronger than ever.

It is easy, 6,300 miles distant from Iran, to shrug at this state of affairs. But the story of how little Iran has outmaneuvered mighty America has epic implications.

Underwriting an Insurgency

As you read this article, American soldiers are being killed with Iranian weapons.

Coalition forces in Iraq have seized brand-new Iranian-made arms, including advanced armor-piercing and anti-tank munitions, from Iraqi terrorists. These weapons could not move from Iranian factories to Iraqi Shiite militias so quickly through black-market routes. “There is no way this could be done without [Iranian] government approval,” a senior U.S. official told abc News (Nov. 30, 2006; emphasis mine throughout).

True, America isn’t fighting Iran directly. But Iran is fighting America directly. With deliberate intent, Iran supplies and stokes the chaos in Iraq in order to break what the U.S. is trying to fix.

Why doesn’t the U.S. hold Iran accountable?

Let there be no doubt: Iraqi anarchy—on the scale we see today—is an Iranian project. Tehran’s inroads into Iraq, including its heavy influence over Iraqi Shiite armed groups, trace back to well before allied forces deposed Saddam Hussein in 2003. Through logistical support to Shiite militias, funding for Shiite social programs, and backing for pro-Iranian Iraqi politicians, Tehran has created a Shiite stronghold—the Saudis call it a “state within a state”—in southern Iraq. It has planted thousands of intelligence agents from its special command forces—agents whose mission is to establish Shiite death squads. With these, Iran can keep turning on the tap of violence.

From the beginning of the Iraq war, Iran has used its power and influence to punish the U.S.-backed political project whenever it appears to be settling on insufficiently pro-Iranian solutions.

In the summer of last year, for example, just as it appeared a Sunni-Shiite-Kurd political compromise might succeed, the agreement crumpled. George Friedman traced the collapse back to a sudden eruption of fighting among Shiites around Basra. After some trips to Tehran by influential Shiite Iraqis, Shiite militias attacked Sunni populations, prompting retaliation and a descent into more chaos. “From nearly having a political accommodation, the situation in Iraq fell completely apart,” Dr. Friedman wrote. “The key was Iran.” In other words, Iran made a calculated choice for chaos.

Why? Simply because, in Tehran’s eyes, the new government would not have been sufficiently subservient. “The Iranians had always wanted an Iraqi satellite state, as protection against another Iraq-Iran war,” Friedman explained. “In order to have this, the Iranians needed an overwhelmingly Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, and to have overwhelming control of the Shia” (Sept. 5, 2006). When the new Iraq government started shaping up differently, the mullahs dropped the hammer. “In other words,” Friedman wrote, “the Iranians didn’t like the deal they had been offered, they felt that they could do better, and they felt that the time had come to strike.”

As we wrote nearly three years ago, “Iran is the number-one obstacle to stability in Iraq.” Yet more and more people in the U.S. say the opposite: that Iran is the number-onekey to stability in Iraq.

Why? Again—why doesn’t the U.S. hold Iran accountable?

The answer is, the U.S. fears Iran.

Asking for Help

The serious discussion occurring at high levels—such as the recommendations of the congressionally appointed Iraq Study Group—advising the U.S. to solve Iraq by negotiating with Iran is extraordinarily revealing. At the very least, this proposal openly acknowledges Iran’s penetrating influence in the situation, if not its blame in causing the problem. It concedes the fact that Iran could stop the violence if it chose to.

Over the past few years, the White House has issued occasional muted threats to Tehran, telling it to knock off its support of violence in Iraq, but these harmless statements have gone nowhere. Even tough talk is apparently too dangerous to risk, let alone open confrontation of Iran’s mullahs. America’s silence reveals the extent of Iran’s power.

The fact is, the Islamic Republic’s penetration into Iraq has been profound enough that the mullahs can credibly threaten orchestrating a full-scale Shiite uprising that would turn Iraq—even those areas that are presently stable—into a bloody nightmare.

“Iran’s negotiating options continue to improve,” Stratfor analysts wrote on December 7. “For the United States, Tehran’s stake and influence in Iraq’s future are decisive; Iraq can no longer be resolved without Iran. Diplomacy is no longer an option—it is a necessity. The United States knows this and has already started down this path.”

The irony is painful. America went into Iraq to wage a “war on terrorism,” perhaps, in part, to gain a beachhead from which to pressure Iran. In doing so, however, it eliminated Iran’s worst enemy in the region. Tehran seized the opportunity, leveraging its influence to ensure U.S. forces would fail. Now it appears the U.S. feels it can’t succeed without asking for the mullahs’ help.

Iran couldn’t have scripted it any better.

Iran’s Goal

The idea of subcontracting Iraqi security to Iran assumes that U.S. and Iranian interests overlap. They do not. The one point of agreement is that, ultimately, both the U.S. and Iran would like to see Iraq become a stable nation. But they differ completely in what kind of state it should be.

America, though it would love to leave Iraq a West-friendly, self-sustaining democracy, at the core simply wants to eliminate terrorist threats to itself. Obviously, this goal is mitigated by the pragmatic goal of not having to fight in Iraq anymore.

Iran’s goal is precisely the opposite. It wants allies in the war against the West. In Iraq, it seeks to strengthen its base of operations, lock down its strategic holdings, and deepen its pool of resources, in order to better conduct its larger offensive.

To this end, it is positioning itself—quite masterfully—to dominate southern Iraq, if not the entire country. “This not only would give them control of the Basra oil fields,” Dr. Friedman wrote, “but also would theoretically open the road to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. From a strictly military point of view, and not including the Shiite insurgencies at all, Iran could move far down the western littoral of the Persian Gulf if American forces were absent. Put another way, there would be a possibility that the Iranians could seize control of the bulk of the region’s oil reserves” (op. cit.).

For the time being, Iran has absolutely no reason to dial down the violence in Iraq. The bloodshed is turning the American public against the American president, exhausting America’s manpower and will, and increasing the likelihood of Washington trying to strike some kind of deal.

When the time is right, however, Iran will most likely prove willing to talk with the U.S. in order to achieve its goals.

Saudi Arabia—no friend of Iran—is seized with anxiety as it watches this drama unfold. Fearing the extent of Iran’s power should the U.S. engage it diplomatically or exit the region, Saudi leaders have been sending firm warnings to Washington not to do either.

Those countries in the region not aligned with Iran have good reason to be edgy. Throughout the 1980s, Iran and Iraq locked horns in a brutal war that effectively kept both nations from posing a threat to anyone outside themselves. Once the U.S. entered the fray in Desert Storm in 1991, the balance of power began to shift toward Iran. Eliminating the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003 completely removed the primary obstacle to Iran realizing its ambition for regional supremacy. Now—Saudi Arabia says correctly—the U.S. presence, while it lasts, is the dam holding back the Iranian tide into Iraq.

And not only Iraq, but also further afield. For Iraq is simply one front in Iran’s region-wide offensive (see page 6).

Shattering Illusions

It is easy to underestimate the magnitude of this moment for the United States. The new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has described the U.S.’s war in Iraq not as a war, but as “a situation to be resolved,” one in which “You can define victory any way you want.” From the comfort of Washington, so far removed from throngs of warriors filling the streets to topple governments, from savage suicide bombings and rocket attacks, from armor-piercing Iranian-made weapons killing American soldiers, it is easy to be so relaxed.

“We are sleep-walking through the storm, as we have done in the past. We pretend it is not happening or that it is simply because of the incompetency of the current administration or of a member of that administration.” These are the farewell words of a U.S. senator who was just voted out of office in the last congressional election, Rick Santorum. “But how do those who deny this evil propose to save us from these people? By negotiating through the UN or directly with Iran? By firing Don Rumsfeld, now getting rid of John Bolton? That is going to solve the problem? These people are now going to be nice to us because we removed these people who were agitating them or causing problems? Maybe relocating our troops to Okinawa or Kuwait or some other place will get these people to simply leave us alone? Maybe if we just abandon Iraq and Afghanistan to the chaos and slaughter of Islamic fascists, their thirst for blood will be met? Or maybe it is just engaging in one-on-one discussions with Iran and North Korea and other reasonable dictators?

“No, I do not think any of those things will work. And history has proved they have not worked” (Dec. 7, 2006).

Nevertheless, to this point, Americans have had the luxury of indulging such fantasies.

That luxury is about to end. Barring a dramatic, unforeseen repentance by the U.S., the decline of American power and the rise of Iranian power—so plainly, painfully evident in today’s headlines—is destined to continue, climaxing in horrifying fashion.

This end was prophesied in the pages of the Bible millennia ago. The fact that America would possess unprecedented power, but that its pride in that power would be broken—the fact that American influence in the Middle East and around the world would be eclipsed—the fact that Iran, a radical, aggressive power, would in fact emerge as king of the Persian Gulf—the fact that Iraq would succumb to Iran’s power and align with it—even the end that awaits this alliance—all these events were prophesied long in advance. These prophecies are thoroughly explained in our booklets The United States and Britain in Prophecy and The King of the South, both of which are yours free upon request.

The great God provided these prophecies—which the Trumpet has been warning readers about for over 12 years; some of them, Herbert W. Armstrong warned about over 50 years before that—as a means of shaking people from their fantasies—and helping us see reality!

These prophecies reveal in shocking detail that our present prosperity and ease will not last much longer. The realities of human savagery and chaos are about to shatter our illusions and engulf us.

These prophecies vividly remind us how fragile our present civilization really is. And they also show God’s penetrating purpose in allowing these nightmares to occur, and reveal—thank God—the hope of a better civilization to come!