War on America
A violent turn in world events is about to occur! The current world order is already being forcibly overturned to a degree few really grasp. The masses who are helping to bring this change about are largely ignorant of what they are doing. But not even those leaders and heads of state who are making the decisions truly understand the nightmarish nature of the world they are about to create.
Even as it wars against Iraq, the United States itself is under siege on multiple fronts—the worst of which is driven from within by its own citizens, many of whom are increasingly consumed by moral wickedness and self-hatred. Such people want to see America step down or be wrenched from its superpower perch.
Soon they will have their wish.
History has seen the rise and fall of dozens of impressive empires—Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, China, Byzantium, Britain, the Soviets. Even the greatest of them peaked and then slid into obscurity. The fact is, superpowers die.
To the delight of much of the world, America’s descent has already begun. In this time of war, America’s enemies—from Islamist extremists, to European politicians, to the anti-war American and British press and public—are stirred emotionally, spouting self-righteous rhetoric about America’s six-shooter president and arrogant imperialism. The world would be better off, they assert, if the U.S. would just stand down and take its place among “equals” like France, Germany, Russia, China.
However, if they knew what God prophesies will happen in the very near future—if they only knew—they would plainly see the fatal irony in such thinking. America’s faults as a nation, and its faltering as a world leader, will soon be looked back upon with a much more charitable perspective—a hindsight hardened by the horrors of a new holocaust!
It’s time we honestly faced this devastating prophecy of God: that America will succumb to the siege, and what will take its place will not be a brotherhood of cooperative, equal nations; nor will it be another cold war. No—it will be the rise of another, truly arrogant and imperialistic superpower.
The Making of a Hated Superpower
During the Cold War, two global superpowers—the U.S. and the ussr—kept each other in check. The rest of the nations aligned themselves to varying degrees with one side or the other. It was uncomfortable, but, because of the seriousness of mutually assured destruction, it produced a relatively stable world.
Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. Suddenly, the U.S.—the most powerful single nation in history—stood alone at the helm of the world. Its singular political, economic and military might was unprecedented, and now it had virtually free reign.
Before long, it became apparent that, in the eyes of many nations, a balance of power needed to be restored.
One by one, nations and groups of nations began to take steps to chip away at America’s dominance. A new wave of anti-Americanism in the Middle East began a steady rise; terrorist strikes on U.S. interests increased (even on U.S. soil—as early as 1993, a sniper attacked cia employees in Virginia, and Osama bin Laden’s operatives bombed the World Trade Center). India and Pakistan, despite condemnation from the U.S. (and the world), went nuclear. And, most significantly, Germany began to assert itself more aggressively, independent of America’s wishes, as evidenced in its policy toward the Balkans (see our booklet The Rising Beast).
America’s response to these challenges was weak at best. And the rest of the world pressed its advantage.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer calls the 1990s America’s “holiday from history,” a decade in which “every major challenge to America was deferred … every can was kicked down the road.” Among the threats that were not decisively dealt with: Iraq, North Korea and bin Laden (who, despite the 1993 wtc attack, was let go for “lack of legal justification” when Sudan offered him to the U.S. in 1996). “On June 19, 2000, the Clinton administration solved the rogue-state problem by abolishing the term and replacing it with ‘states of concern.’ Unconcerned, the rogue states prospered, arming and girding themselves for big wars” (Washington Post, Feb. 14).
But it wasn’t just rogue states executing this subtle sabotage of American power. A trend toward globalization, toward upholding the ascendancy of international organizations and treaties, provided groups of nations an opportunity to exploit U.S. power while limiting U.S. hegemony. (Ironically, many of these very organizations—including the United Nations—were American creations, products of plainly non-imperialistic post-World War ii goodwill, intended to gift power back to the world.) In the states of former Yugoslavia, for example, Germany used nato—driven largely by American military muscle—to secure what have essentially become colonies of the European Union. Through disarmament treaties, nations sought to blunt American potency. Through environmental and trade treaties, they substantially worked to restrict American industry.
And as long as America didn’t protest these constraints, the big-name countries still spoke as though they were the best of friends, only too happy to let America shine in the superpower spotlight.
Then George W. Bush became president in a close and controversial election. Liberals within the States welled up with bitterness, which quickly turned into a virulent kind of America-hate. Blame for the world’s increasing desire to topple the U.S. was pinned on the new president within months of his taking office; the message from the liberal American press to the world was, We understand—we don’t like the guy either.
When President Bush began showing independence, pulling back from the “rule by consensus” used by his predecessor, and withdrawing from international treaties, the world got angry. As an example, after America’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, an environment campaigner from Fiji stated that even though all nations are enemies of the environment, the U.S. is the number-one offender. “[T]here must be a new category for the United States. I would like to see an international justice system that would recognize this crime” (Reuters, May 21, 2001).
The sanctimonious hostility was on open display at the international forums and summits—not just from the picket lines surrounding them, but even from attending officials. Take last year’s U.N. world summit on environmental issues in Johannesburg, South Africa; attendees wore a collar pin saying, “What should we do with the United States?” (Daily News, New York, Aug. 28, 2002). A leading environmental activist, angry toward America’s refusal to submit to international restrictions, said, “Bush should be hauled in front of an international tribunal and be made accountable” (ibid.).
The threat of just such an action became more real with the creation of the International Criminal Court. Thus, Bush’s refusal to sign America onto the project only stoked the world’s infuriation (see here).
Even the horrors of 9/11 did nothing to arrest the hatred. After a few months of outwardly showing sympathy with the U.S. and solidarity in its war on terrorism, the world began to turn ugly again. Disapproval among many people over how President Bush was running his war began with the first strikes on Afghanistan, and steadily ramped up right through to the beginning of the Iraq campaign. The German newspaper Berliner Zeitung criticized President Bush for using the September 11 terrorist attacks as an “opportunity to strengthen its selfish superpower position” (Atlantic Monthly, November 2002).
Today, America grapples with an unparalleled level of antipathy in the world.
The United Nations Sham
President Bush threatened action against Iraq for over 15 months, and this after over a decade of diplomacy. The common perception peddled by much of the world press of Bush as a heedless, trigger-happy cowboy was undermined by the repeated continuances he gave to Saddam Hussein and the lumbering U.N. inspection process.
Nevertheless, the groundswell of global opinion against Bush soared to new heights. Europe in particular saw this as its opportunity to take a real swing at America. And the forum they chose was the United Nations.
The single biggest factor staving off a U.S. strike on Iraq, apart from a natural distaste for conflict, was the U.N. The peaceniks hailed the supposed wisdom of the “international community” and cried out that when the 15-member U.N. Security Council doesn’t approve of a war, that war is illegal and wrong.
To some, such thinking may sound righteous. But the fact is, this agenda was advanced by people who hate America and are vigorously working to undermine its power.
As Conrad Black wrote in London’s Spectator, “Many reasons are advanced for opposing American policy, but most of them are no more than simple anti-Americanism. In order to present an obstacle to American action, an absurdly exaggerated legitimization of the United Nations has occurred” (March 22; emphasis mine throughout). How absurd? To try to get the requisite Security Council support for its actions, the U.S. was forced to go cap-in-hand to such non-entities as Cameroon and Guinea, and even deal with U.S.- declared state terrorist sponsor Syria!
In truth, for the months leading up to the war the U.N. simply was used as a weapon against the U.S.—a leverage against its power. As Mr. Black wrote, some nations on the Council were bent on inaction because “self-righteous weakness resents a law-enforcing power that has become unprecedentedly strong.” In other words, they vetoed the battle plan not because of their aversion to war, but because of their aversion to U.S. leadership. Even Mideast nations that would love to see Saddam Hussein removed from power still protested the plan only because it was spearheaded by the U.S.
The ironies were stark and powerful. The United Nations, an organization created largely by the U.S. to solicit the world’s help in containing dictators, was now being used by the world to contain the U.S.
The heat of the pre-war debate was remarkably revealing. And the most important of these revelations was the exposure of the gaping and widening rift between America and Europe—a rift caused not by failed diplomacy on the part of the American president, but by thenaked aspirations for superpower status on the part of the European Union.
Challenge Out of Europe
What is behind this tidal wave of anti-Americanism? There is a hidden cause unseen even to the most astute of geopolitical observers!
Taking a big-picture survey of the international landscape, we see it increasingly coalescing into four main camps: Anglo-America, Europe, the Islamic nations, and the Asiatic nations. Currently the latter three of these groups are each working in various ways to enfeeble and undermine the first group.
This present reality is a stunning vindication of the power of biblical prophecy, which foretells precisely such an alignment among nations in this end time!
But, just as the Almighty God said this would be the case, so too He prophesied the outcome.
America’s foreign policy is based on the supposition that its most dangerous adversary lies within the group of Islamic nations. But what is becoming more and more clear is that, in truth, the greatest long-term threat is actually emerging from Europe. The prelude to war in Iraq made plain that what has been commonly viewed as one of America’s strongest alliances since World War ii—that shared with Germany and France—has been a sham.
What the world witnessed in the run-up to the Iraq campaign was just the latest volleys in a trans-Atlantic battle that has been heating up over several years—one that is prophesied to culminate in World War iii!
“Make no mistake!” Herbert W. Armstrong wrote in 1965, warning that the economic union of six European nations—Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy—was only a pretext for a more ambitious goal. “The six countries so far involved in this economic union—and other European countries—urgently want political union, the very United States of Europe I have been assuring Plain Truth readers for 36 years is definitely coming” (Plain Truth, November 1965). Mr. Armstrong, until the time of his death in 1986, repeatedly predicted the rise of a united Europe to superpower status.
Given the U.S.’s dominance politically, economically and militarily, Europe has had to pick its battles, remaining content for smaller gains where necessary. In reality, it has done a cunning job of exploiting U.S. power to meet its own ends while still remaining in the shadows. But now, as events steamroll forward, the magnitude of its ambitions are increasingly being unmasked!
Today we see plans underway for a robust European constitution that would create a federal European government. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former president of France and head of the European Convention, even suggested changing the name of the EU to “The United States of Europe.”
Whatever the name, a superstate in Europe is fast becoming reality, just as Mr. Armstrong prophesied.
“The next clash of civilizations will not be between the West and the rest but between the United States and Europe—and Americans remain largely oblivious,” warned Charles A. Kupchan a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (Atlantic Monthly, op. cit.).
“Not only is American primacy far less durable than it appears, but it is already beginning to diminish,” wrote Dr. Kupchan. He describes the European Union, on the other hand, as “an emerging polity that is in the process of marshaling the impressive resources and historical ambitions of Europe’s separate nation-states.” “Europe is strengthening its collective consciousness and character and forging a clearer sense of interests and values that are quite distinct from those of the United States” he wrote. “For the moment, America remains largely oblivious to the challenges posed by a rising Europe” (ibid.).
The Trumpet has often foretold the inevitability of the cracks in the trans-Atlantic alliance splitting wide open. Even our parent magazine, the Plain Truth, printed this over a quarter century ago: “European antagonism toward the United States and its policies is now in the open. The next few years will bring forth more misunderstanding, conflicts of interest and, at times, outright hostility between the United States and Europe” (March 1974).
The truth is this: “It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world” (Policy Review, June-July 2002).
America Has Won Its Last War
The Trumpet has often repeated Mr. Armstrong’s dramatic prophecy that America has won its last war. We have also said America has already lost its superpower status. How can we continue to say that as the country once again demonstrates the overwhelming superiority of its armed forces?
The world has never seen military power like that exhibited by the United States in the past century. As Micah prophesied, America was strong like “a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep” (see Micah 5:7-9). Even in the Iraq campaign, America exhibits unparalleled strength.
But God prophesies that those blessings will cease, and America’s dominance will end: “And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strong holds” (v. 11; see vv. 10-15). America’s pride in its military power will be completely broken (Lev. 26:19). The defenses and armaments America trusts in will fail: “And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee” (Deut. 28:52).
Of these future events we can be absolutely certain. But we mustn’t fail to see how these prophecies are being fulfilled even now!
As Dr. George Friedman points out, we must remember that this action in Iraq is not a war, but merely a campaign in the larger war against terrorism (www.stratfor.com, March 19). Conquering Iraq is not winning the war! The costs America has absorbed for this one campaign—in time, in treasure, in political capital—has been enormous. The global “coalition against terrorism” so painstakingly created after 9/11 no longer exists, not even a year and half later. So where will President Bush go next? Even with very real, imminent threats emerging from the other two players in the “axis of evil”—North Korea and Iran—he will hardly be eager to extend the war to yet another country.
Prophecy shows that America will not win the war against terrorism! It is possible that a victory in Iraq will quiet things for a while. But the threat out of the Middle East, ultimately, will only grow stronger, because America simply lacks the will to deal with it decisively enough.
In fact, in defeating Iraq the U.S. may actually set the stage for one or both of these prophetic scenarios: 1) strengthening Iran’s role as a unifying force with the region; and 2) clearing the way for Europe to act as a post-war “peacekeeper,” as in the Balkans and now Afghanistan. Watch the region closely after America accomplishes its mission.
America’s influence as a world leader is under powerful attack. Though Britain and Australia remain staunch allies, America’s friends are few. It has the strength, but it does not have the followers. What it has is a growing array of enemies marshaled against it, doing everything they can to bring mighty America to its knees.
Sadly, its enemies will soon have the opportunity to watch this superpower die—and many will have a personal hand in bringing it about.
But what will take its place? Many nations want to believe they would get a slice of the pie in America’s absence. Prophecy, however, gives us the answer. And it should be enough to make everyone on Earth quake with fear!
The Next Superpower
The mighty empires of the past have been the main engine for the advancement of human civilization—its technologies, its refinements. But that engine has been largely fueled by greed and lust, and stoked using the sweat and blood of weaker peoples. Consider—to take the worst example—the crushing might of the Roman Empire, described by the Prophet Daniel as being “strong as iron … and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise” (Dan. 2:40).
The distortions of political correctness would deny this, but it is fact nonetheless: Against the backdrop of history, the United States is one of the most generous, altruistic and benign of the great powers that have ever existed.
But the next great power, the one that will stand in the gap when the U.S. goes down, will exhibit none of America’s benevolence. No—prophecy shows that the next superpower will be a European “beast” (Rev. 13:1-8; 17:3-17)—a final resurrection of that iron Roman Empire described by Daniel—which will initiate the greatest holocaust in world history!
What is the hidden cause for the mounting antipathy against America? It is the very real presence of an invisible, yet powerful devil! The Bible shows that he is directly behind the power that will soon supplant America. Satan is presently mounting his resistance on as many fronts as he can summon, and empowering the force that will take its place.
Empowered by Satan the devil, this beast will “make war with the saints”; it will have power “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” Daniel says it will move “like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships …. [A]nd many countries shall be overthrown” (Dan. 11:40-41).
That superpower will be crushingly violent! All peoples—not least of whom will be the multitudes of “slaves, and souls of men” in forced subjection (Rev. 18:13)—will live in abject fear of its brutality.
And God will allow these horrors to happen. He will use this United States of Europe—the final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, led by Germany—as His instrument to punish America for its national sins. (Request your free copy of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire for more information.)
This violent turn in world events is devastatingly close!
Although he does not understand the EU’s future as explained in the Bible, Dr. Kupchan plainly sees where the EU is going: “[T]he EU is already coming of age as a collective force; it is on, if not well ahead of, schedule.”
With reporting by william ghannam