I think you nailed it, EI. The fundamental Muslim position is that "War is Deceit." This is true of any nation, of course: secrecy is an essential component of winning strategies. But the point is, even though Islam calls itself Dar al-Salam---the house of peace---they are in a constant mindset of war. "Peace" is defined by them as dhimmitude: the slavery and subjection of the entire world to Islamic rule. Anything short of this goal is war. That's why they can look you in the eye with a straight face and swear they're "a religion of peace." They've simply redefined the terminology.

The fictional vignette from FH you quoted was, of course, my attempt to "flesh out" the events predicted concerning the prelude to the battle of Magog---due to take place sometime after the "covenant with many" is "confirmed," as in Daniel 9:27---in 2027, if my prophecy clock is accurate. So what we're seeing now is not precisely the same thing. Which is not to say Iran or any other Muslim state won't flex its muscles and throw its weight around in the meantime.

As far as nukes being used before the Tribulation begins, here are my thoughts. Israel will never be successfully nuked, of this I am quite certain. And the first Trumpet Judgment (Rev 8:7) clearly predicts that a large scale nuclear war will occur early in (during the first half) of the Trib. So... Is it possible that a terrorist nuclear device will be detonated before the Tribulation begins? Yes, quite possible---not in Israel, as I said, but America has no such reassurances. I'd say that if it happens, however, it will be the kind of thing that we can't (or won't) retaliate against, perhaps because we can't be sure who attacked us. If we can't tell if it was Russia, Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea, who are we going to shoot back at? You can't nuke al-Qaeda without guaranteeing 1000% or 10,000% collateral damage, and America doesn't have the stomach for that sort of carnage---even if Amadinejad does.

Blue-sky speculation? I think Israel may successfully attack and disable Iran's nuclear program before Amadinejad has a big enough nuclear arsenal together to give his paranoia free reign. (America can't, and won't.) This, if nothing else, might explain why the forces of Magog are seen in scripture invading Israel, rather than merely bombing the living spit our of her. They can't "fall upon the mountains of Israel" if they don't go there---personally.

kp

I think your assessment is correct Ed. I recall during Gulf War-I aka Desert Storm that Israel desired to either make their own strikes or direct coalition combat operations against Iraq while scuds were being fired against their nation. The US devoted a vast portion of Coalition strike sorties to the western portion of Iraq on scud hunts seeking mobile launchers in addition to basing Patriots in Israel to appease Israeli sensibilities. Aside form the likely fracturing of that Western - Arab coalition IDF action would've lead to I recall concerns that Coalition air commanders could not assure the IDF that we could positively identify their aircraft as friendly should they choose to do their own scud hunt unannounced and without coordination.

It also seems to me that Iran has little reason to actively provoke an excuse for the US to hit them while in the process of pulling out our forces from Iraq. Does the new Iraq have an air force capable to stopping a determined Israeli strike on Iran? If they do I haven't heard about it.

The other consideration that occurs to me is the Iranian president himself. While I have little confidence in kindly intent if any Iranian President or Supreme Leader, it may turn out that given the fall in oil prices and the pounding Iran's economy has been through that the current Iranian President is replaced by a comparative moderate less likely to provoke a strike or a conflict in the very near future.

A final thought that I've been thinking about is the role of nuclear weapons in the world today. From my studies by the late Cold War neither the Soviets nor US had a first use policy with the possible exception of a NATO use if European NATO were overrun. I think the tripwire would've been France or the UK more than West Germany or the BeNeLux as these two had independent nuclear capabilities. Part of the reason being that both the US and Soviets believed that they could effectively accomplish the missions tactical nuclear weapons would earlier have been used for with smart / precision conventional weapons instead and without endangering their own nations to a strategic exchange.

So "great powers" keep nuclear weapons more as a deterrent to a direct conflict with a similarly equipped power. That leaves states and organizations that feel they have little to lose if they themselves use or are retaliated against in kind. I see Islamic Jihadis striking at the Great Satan without an obvious return address using these weapons to strike terror in the US or other distant "infidel" nuclear powers long before they'd consider a local exchange in which fallout would rain on dar al Islam.

http://foxforum.blogs.fo.../11/12/ajafarzadeh_1112/



The Message in Tehran’s Missile Tests

""Iran’s military commanders have boasted that they have their fingers on thousands of missile triggers, aimed at 32 U.S. targets in the Middle East, and declared they will plunge the region into “raging fire.” ""