Suddenly the top Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidency are insisting that the United States pull out of Iraq very quickly. This is a far more radical idea than simply opposing the idea of sending more troops. The Democrats have only been in control of Congress for a month, and already they are making strong demands of the president in the war on terrorism. Polls show that a majority of Americans agree with them. It looks like the tide has shifted strongly in favor of the Democrats taking over the presidency in the next election.

This is a dangerous moment in American history—and world history. But many people have lost the big picture. They are focusing almost exclusively on wanting to end the loss of American soldiers, and ignoring the larger implications of this war.

To understand how critical this moment is, we must see where world terrorism began. We must go back in history to see terrorism’s roots.

When Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi led Iran, he was a strong ally of America. But our liberal press and politicians thought he was too undemocratic, so they helped to drive him from power. As he was falling, America gave him little or no support.

Then, in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah. Khomeini established Iran as the world’s number-one state sponsor of terrorism. After Khomeini’s death 10 years later, Hashemi Rafsanjani intensified Iran’s international network of terrorism. It was only then that some observers began to see what a terrible mistake liberals had made in assisting the shah’s downfall.

Back in 1994, then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher called Iran “the world’s most significant state sponsor of terrorism.” How pathetic to make such a statement back then and do nothing about it! Just how much of a superpower is America? America has known for years who “the world’s most significant state sponsor of terrorism” is. But it lacks the will to deal with Iran—to hold Iran accountable for its terrorist acts of war!

In the 1990s, state-sponsored terrorism became deeply entrenched in Iran, and America’s leaders did almost nothing to combat it.

More than any other nation (apart from Iran), America is responsible for the overthrow of the shah and the ushering in of Ayatollah Khomeini. Our weakness could prove to be the biggest foreign-policy disaster in modern times!

How did it all happen?

We must understand how this relates to the present situation in Iraq. History shows how Islamic extremism can dramatically change the politics within a country, and it gives us an indication of the kind of power Iran could be very close to achieving.

Let’s look at Egypt, where Islamic extremism—which spawns terrorism—is gaining power at a frightening pace. There, one assassination turned the course of the entire Middle East!

Radical Changes in Egypt

A few years before the fall of the shah of Iran, Anwar Sadat was the warrior leader of Egypt and the Middle East. For example, he was the key leader of the Arab world in the Yom Kippur War against the Jews.

But, then the world was shocked—especially the Arab world. About the time Iran’s shah fell, Mr. Sadat was becoming an astounding Middle East peacemaker. He enraged the Arab radicals by speaking at the Jewish Knesset (their congress, or parliament). One man was literally swinging the Middle East toward peace with the West.

But Mr. Sadat was working against the tide of radical Islam.

It is interesting that the late Herbert W. Armstrong visited with two Egyptian presidents: Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. He gave both men a strong warning that we were not going to have peace until Allah, or God, gave it to us!

In 1981, Mike Wallace of the television program 60 Minutes interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini (who had come to power only two years before). He told the ayatollah that Sadat had called him a “lunatic.”

Almost immediately afterward, in just days, President Sadat was assassinated!

That is the kind of power the leader of radical Islam has! America and the world allowed this evil power to change history. Now terrorism is rampant around the world! America didn’t have the will to stop such state-sponsored madness.

When the Sadat assassination occurred, Mr. Armstrong said it was a turning point in Middle East history! And that was almost an understatement. But virtually nobody in the media saw—or they refused to see—what a world-changing event that was!

Iran’s terrorist network was working frighteningly well.

Mr. Sadat was in the process of changing the Middle East for the good of the world. He took a stand against many of his own people and the Arab world to make peace with Israel. He proved to be a truly great man by putting the interests of the world and Egypt above his personal safety. If the leaders of the U.S. and Britain had shown his courage, they would have dealt with Iran then. Because of U.S. weakness, the Middle East began to look to the king of terror for leadership. It all happened because of American, British and Israeli weakness.

President Mubarak, a moderate who is becoming increasingly unpopular, could be assassinated just as Anwar el-Sadat was, or taken out of the picture some other way. In any event, his departure could implement another gigantic change in Egyptian politics, similar to what happened in Iran’s 1979 revolution. The Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic group, is gaining great power in Egypt today.

Daniel 11:42 implies that Egypt will be allied with the king of the south, or Iran. (Request our free booklet The King of the South.) This prophecy indicates that there would be a radical change in Egyptian politics! It is happening before our eyes in this end time, and it is mainly because of Iran’s “push” toward radicalism. But that pushy foreign policy is going to lead to its downfall, in a way that most people cannot imagine!

Iran’s Global Ambitions

A Stratfor intelligence brief dated Aug. 22, 2003, explained that back in May 2003, following what was seen as a decisive allied military victory in Iraq, the surrounding countries, including Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, saw the U.S. as the “ascendant power in the region” and recognized the need to accommodate U.S. demands. However, as events on the ground changed, these nations began to see things differently. Today, the U.S. is seen as weak and needing help. This change has the most impact on Iran, which is deeply influential over the Shiites in Iraq. As they see the U.S. becoming desperate, the Iranians will no longer feel the need to appease the U.S.

Stratfor stated this back in 2003—and the situation is far worse today: “The situation in the region is, in our view, reaching the crisis stage for the United States. Things are going very wrong for the Bush administration. The threat of an Islamist rising from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf no longer is an interesting theoretical concept. [This influence and control would even extend beyond the Mediterranean, into North Africa.] Except for Jordan, it is becoming a reality. Under the circumstances, Jordan’s stability and security should not be assumed in the next year or so. If Iran—or native Iraqi leaders—send the Shiites into the streets, then all of Iraq will be in chaos, and a perfect storm will have formed” (Aug. 22, 2003; emphasis mine throughout).

But Iran’s strategy in the region extends well beyond Iraq. The real power behind the Palestinians is Iran. No other nation finances and blatantly encourages terrorism in Israel like Iran does. It has even been caught publicly sending enormous amounts of weapons to the Palestinians.

Hezbollah and Hamas, thorns in the side of the nation Israel, are extensions of Iranian militancy. Virtually the whole world knows what Iran is doing, and Israel’s terrorist problem keeps getting worse. Israel is losing its war with the terrorists, and so will the U.S. and Britain. Such terrorism will tear any free society apart. Israel is a classic example.

The only way to win such a war is to deal with the main source of the terrorism, or cut off the head of the terrorist snake. But neither the U.S. nor Israel has the will to tackle Iran—even though it is the key part of the “axis of evil” in the Middle East.

President Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea the “axis of evil.” Iraq’s government has been toppled. However, America can’t win this war unless it also removes Iran’s leadership. But American (and British) leaders are overwhelmingly liberal, and the press is dangerously pacifist. Our peoples lack the will to win this war against terrorism.

President Bush’s labeling of the axis of evil was absolutely correct. However, he was attacked by the liberal politicians and press for that statement. That painfully illustrates America’s dangerous lack of will power.

Imagine what will happen in Iraq if an antiwar candidate wins the 2008 election! Iran is acutely aware of the political scene in the U.S. and Britain.

After Britain’s military display in Iraq, the people should have embraced Mr. Blair. But the British (and American) people are too weak to fight a real war, even within their own borders. We lack the will to win a bloody, protracted war.

The fruits and evidence of the past two decades overwhelmingly prove where the king of state-sponsored terrorism is! The whole world can see that. However, the solution to terrorism lies in doing something about it! We must confront the source. The terrorist movement flows from Iran.

Mr. Armstrong said over two decades ago that “America has won its last war.” He saw then that the pride in our military power had been broken!

Nations throughout the Middle East are already strongly influenced by Iran. If Iraq falls to this terrorist nation, which seems close to happening, then Iran could control an enormous area that contains a gigantic share of the world’s oil!

The situation is especially scary when you consider Iran’s determination to attain nuclear weapons. It has already been proven that Iran has the ability to enrich uranium and complete the nuclear fuel cycle. A full year ago, the U.S. publicly confirmed that Iran has attained nuclear weapons capability.