The Prophecy Of Doom Was Foretold 2000 Years Ago (Revelation)

Prophecy of doom

Muhammad Waqas
Published — Thursday 12 March 2015

Last update 11 March 2015 11:57 pm

When India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998, the world suddenly became a dangerous place. South Asia, now home to about 2 billion people, was in the midst of a nuclear arms race. Ignoring other national priorities of alleviating poverty, investing in social and human capital, both neighbors chose to go nuclear in the name of fortifying national security. The global community, which had urged restraint and called for curbing nuclear proliferation, feared the worst in case these two archrivals were to engage in another military confrontation.

Since those tests, India and Pakistan have fought a proxy Kargil war in 1999 and were on the verge of another precarious situation in 2001-02. Hectic diplomatic efforts and international pressure averted a major crisis in South Asia at that time, but both sides have continued to strengthen their military power over the years. They have still not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and are exploring the use of nuclear technology for civilian purposes as well.

In response to India’s rapid development of new missile technology, Pakistan continues to reactively build its own arsenal of tactical and nuclear-capable missiles for “minimum deterrence.” In context of the recent cross-border military escalation between India and Pakistan, it may be felt that nuclear escalation poses a real challenge for regional stability and security.

In a hearing at the US Congress, George Perkovich and Ashley Tellis, experts on South Asian affairs, once again highlighted the dangers of nuclear weapons in the region. They believed that a major terrorist attack similar to the 26/11 Mumbai incident, planned and coordinated by militants, may force India to launch a full-scale military offensive against the country. Failing to match the might of India’s conventional military power, Pakistan may be forced to use its nuclear weapons as a last resort.

This dooms day scenario would have horrific consequences for global peace and affect over one-third of the world’s population. While the risks to global peace are omnipresent, it is highly unlikely that both India and Pakistan will show the immaturity to enter into a serious armed conflict in the foreseeable future. Although the two countries have a frosty relationship, they agree on the need to build trust and confidence for resolution of all outstanding issues. It is hoped that greater economic partnership and cultural exchange among people would provide a boost to the diplomatic efforts and usher a new era of progress in South Asia. Recent round of foreign secretary level talks between the two sides is a good omen for peace in the region.

Further, Pakistan is taking concrete steps to uproot the menace of terrorism from its soil. The country is conducting a military crackdown in the North Waziristan region, known as a terrorist safe haven for Pakistan-based Taleban groups. The current operation against terrorists is indiscriminate and also targeted at some militia groups, who may have been viewed as “strategic assets” in previous decades by Pakistan’s security establishment. As these militant groups are now known to be supporting anti-state activities, Pakistan has firmly committed to eliminating them and their abettors.

It is hoped that sanity will prevail in all circumstances and the prophecy of doom by Perkovich and Tellis never comes true.

Making A Deal With The Devil (Daniel 8)

Analysis: Iran is no partner in the fight against the Islamic State

Qassem Soleimani (center) with his bodyguards near the frontlines of Tikrit. 

Testifying on Capitol Hill on March 3, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey characterized the joint attempts of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shia militias, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at taking back control of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, from the Islamic State, as “a positive thing.” “Frankly,” General Dempsey said, “it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”
General Dempsey’s caveat is an interesting one, since there is every reason to believe that Shia control of Tikrit will result in further sectarianism. While the US administration says in its most recent National Security Strategy that it desires to “degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL [Islamic State]” in an attempt to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists,” Tehran is actively perpetuating the sectarian crisis in Iraq. 
In the past, the Iraqi Shia have demonstrated little interest in reducing themselves to puppets of Tehran. During the war with Iraq from 1980-1988, Iraqi nationalism trumped sectarian identity: the Shia constituted the rank and file of the Iraqi military, and Shia leaders in Iraq kept their distance from the regime in Tehran. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq became a sanctuary to Iranian clerics critical of the regime in Tehran, including Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic. 
But Iraq did not remain a refuge for long. The civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran. After being rebuffed by the US following the Islamic State’s takeover of Mosul in 2014, General Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, asked Tehran for help and received assistance within 48 hours. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi continues to press Washington for more support in his fight against the Islamic State and uses US hesitancy to justify reliance on Iran, which according to Vice President Iyad Allawi, only increases Iran’s influence in Iraq and could lead to dismantlement of the Iraqi state.
The Obama administration may desire to help secure the survival of the Iraqi state, but the small contingent of US advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia, and in addition, Shia militias and “advisers” from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces. 
This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the US, leading to the possibility that  Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State, thus undermining the US strategy to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists.” 
Any US reliance on Iranian support in the fight against the Islamic State is also likely to strengthen Tehran’s bargaining position in the nuclear negotiations. 
Iran has Washington where it wants it. Iran wants a favorable deal, and the Obama administration is signaling that such a deal is forthcoming. US “strategic patience” is allowing Iran to increase its influence and presence in Iraq and Syria. Assad is waiting out the Americans and the international community, and Shia militias are now viewed as legitimate forces in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. But most importantly, US “strategic patience” signals to Iran an unwillingness to jeopardize the talks by linking them to Iran’s role in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. 

Ali Alfoneh is a senior fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Michael P. Pregent is a former intelligence officer and military adviser and now adjunct at National Defense University.

The GOP Just Increased Iran’s Nuclear Potential (Daniel 8:3)

Thanks, Tom Cotton. You Just Got Us a Hard-line Supreme Leader.

The next Iranian ruler could reject a deal just as easily as the next U.S. president. He probably will.

GOP: Watch What You Ask For! (Daniel 8:3)

Republicans warn Iran nuclear deal with Obama may not last


(Reuters) – Forty-seven Republican U.S. senators warned Iran’s leaders on Monday that any nuclear deal with President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, an unusual partisan intervention in foreign policy that could undermine delicate international talks with Tehran.

The open letter was signed by all but seven of the Republicans in the Senate and none of Obama’s fellow Democrats, who called it a “stunt.” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif dismissed it as a “propaganda ploy” from pressure groups he called afraid of diplomatic agreement.

In the letter, the senators said Congress plays a role in ratifying international agreements. Noting Obama will leave office in January 2017, they said any deal not approved by Congress would be merely “an executive agreement” that could be revoked by Congress.

The White House said the letter was a partisan effort to undermine Obama’s foreign policy by lawmakers who oppose a deal even if the only alternative is military action.

Obama said his focus now was on seeing if negotiators could get a deal or not, taking a jab at Senate Republicans for allying themselves with Iranian hardliners opposed to a deal.

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It’s an unusual coalition,” Obama told reporters.

A Western diplomat said the action was “without precedent.” “It’s 100 percent an American issue, but obviously it could become a real problem,” the diplomat said.

Iran’s Zarif blasted the Republicans. “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement ‘with the stroke of a pen’ … it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law,” he said in a statement.


The letter seemed to harden partisan lines in the Senate, where Republicans will need Democrats’ support to pass legislation now in the works to tighten sanctions on Iran or require congressional approval of a deal.

“Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs,” said Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid.

The letter, first reported by Bloomberg, was the latest Republican effort to influence the Iran talks. Many Republicans worry Obama is so eager for a deal he will sign off on an agreement leaving Iran able to easily make a nuclear weapon.

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress Obama was negotiating a “bad deal” after Republicans invited him to speak about Iran, without consulting the White House or Democrats.

World powers and Tehran are trying to reach a framework agreement this month, and a final deal by June, to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions. Iran denies its civil nuclear program is a cover for developing weapons.

Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Switzerland on March 15 for the next round of talks.

The letter was spearheaded by first-term Senator Tom Cotton, who has called for “regime change” in Iran, not negotiations. Signers included all of the Senate’s Republican leaders, and possible 2016 presidential contenders Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.

A spokeswoman for Cotton said his office had invited several Democrats to co-sign but none had done so.

One Senate Republican who did not sign was Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker. An aide said Corker is focused on getting a veto-proof majority to support his legislation, backed by both Republicans and Democrats, that would require Congress’ authorization of an Iran deal.

(Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Julia Edwards, John Irish, Roberta Rampton and Parisa Hafezi; Editing by James Dalgleish)

Pakistani Horn Can Now Annihilate ALL Of India (Daniel 8:8)

Pakistan successfully tested a nuclear-capable missile that can hit any point in India

Pakistan nuclear range
Jeremy Bender
Mar. 10, 2015, 1:32 PM

Pakistan successfully launched the latest version of an indigenously developed nuclear-capable cruise missile on Monday, The Washington Post reports.

The Shaheen-III missile has a maximum range of up to 1,700 miles, according to members of the Pakistani military. Depending upon the missile’s placement, Pakistan would be capable of carrying out a nuclear strike from Israel in the West to Kazakhstan in the north and Burma in the east.
The following map shows the missile’s ultimate range were it to be placed in the west of Pakistan.
Although the missile would allow Pakistan to target the entirety of the Middle East and Central Asia, the missile’s primary target would be Islamabad’s archrival: India.

With a range of 1,700 miles, the Shaheen-III would allow Pakistan to target any location in India with a nuclear strike.

“Now, India doesn’t have its safe havens anymore,” Shahid Latif, a former commander of the Pakistani air force, told the Post. “It’s all a reaction to India, which has now gone even for tests of extra-regional missiles … It sends a loud message: If you hurt us, we are going to hurt you back.”
The test comes a week after Pakistan and India held their first high-level talks in almost a year, the AFP reports. The development of the Shaheen-III is intended as a “credible deterrence” against any possible Indian aggression towards the country.

India’s military is superior to Pakistan’s in terms of technological capacity and sheer numbers. Any full-scale conventional war between the two countries would likely end with India blockading Pakistan’s ports and seizing a considerable amount of land.

To compensate, Pakistan has invested heavily in its nuclear deterrant. Although both countries have nuclear weapons, India has strict policies against the first use of the nuclear weapons. Pakistan does not share this stance, as the Post explains.

The Council on Foreign Relations estimated that there was a low chance of a war between India and Pakistan in 2015. However, if such a war were to take place it could conceivably involve the use of nuclear weapons from both sides. The two countries have had a shaky ceasefire in place since 2003, although they exchanged artillery shelling in October 2014.

India and Pakistan are the world’s 2nd and 10th biggest arms importers, respectively.
India has recently carried out its own missile tests. In October 2014, the country successfully tested a nuclear-capable cruise missile, and in December 2014 New Delhi began sea trials of a ballistic missile submarine.