A Deal With the Devil
When Saddam Hussein was captured in a spider hole, things began looking up for coalition forces. Better intelligence meant an immediate drop in terrorist attacks. Suddenly Libya, after months of diplomatic efforts, looked to be coming in out of the cold, renouncing ties to terrorism and becoming a willing partner for peace in the Middle East. Iran and Egypt followed with indications of a reversal of their former antipathy. Then Turkey and Syria appeared to engage in efforts to make up. Israel followed with overtures to Syria.
For just once, it seemed that a host of nations in the most volatile region on Earth were ready to give peace a chance. And now, for the foreseeable future—which perspective is admittedly very limited in these times—the structure of Middle Eastern affairs appears to be working in favor of a period of quiet.
But in this region, things are never quite what they seem. Look closely, and what we are seeing is actually a scramble among many for a long-term power advantage. With one less dictator around and America sure to leave at some point, several regional powers are positioning themselves to fill the gap.
Indications are that, in the end, Iran will be the big winner.
Saddam’s Sunni-dominated tyranny in Iraq had been a longtime enemy of and counterbalance to Iran, which is run by Shiite Muslims. When the U.S. eliminated Saddam’s government, Iran strategized on how best to capitalize on the moment. As the Sunnis mounted their guerrilla resistance, Shiite clerics, including the now-prominent Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, cannily told followers not to oppose coalition forces.
The Trumpet detailed in our November 2003 issue the back-door negotiations that then took place. In exchange for Iran-influenced Shiite leaders keeping Iraq’s Shiite population under control, the U.S. agreed to eventually allow a Shiite-dominated government to take control in Iraq. This kept the conflict localized for the U.S. (a Shiite uprising on top of the guerrilla war would have been a nightmare)—and it gave Iran what it always wanted: a friendly neighbor in Iraq, essentially guaranteeing its own unchecked dominance in the region.
Events are bearing out the reality of this compromise having taken place—although both sides are still clearly trying to press every advantage to give up as little as possible.
Last December, Tehran went public with two startling reversals of foreign policy. First, it declared willingness to accept inspections of its nuclear facilities. Second, it agreed to recognize the U.S.-appointed interim Governing Council in Iraq. This was not so much capitulation to a newly strengthened America, as was the case with Libya, as it was Iran’s holding up its end of the bargain—signs of a flowering association with Washington.
Faced with the difficult task of getting the public to accept this dramatic turnaround in relationships, both Iran and the U.S. found the unlikely means to this end being provided by the impact of December’s tragic earthquake in the Iranian city of Bam. Iran, though publicly blustering, readily seized the opportunity to accept the offer of U.S. relief teams to supply aid in the earthquake’s aftermath. Pictures of usaf aircraft landing in Iran, of U.S. military personnel unloading and distributing U.S. aid on Iranian soil and of tents with U.S. flags providing temporary accommodation for those made homeless by the effects of the earthquake, attested to the emerging relationship between the two nations.
If you follow the daily reports, you can see a pattern that points to 1) Iraq falling under the control of a decidedly Iran-friendly government, and 2) Iran gaining considerable clout in the process. Consider, for example, the huge demonstration that occurred in the city of Basra, Iraq, on January 15, where the “unofficial purpose” was to show the U.S. “that the Shiite community was disciplined and generally responsive to the wishes of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. By holding the demonstration in Basra, al-Sistani was reminding the United States of the power the Shiites have near the southern oil fields” (Stratfor, January 16). In a January 17 piece, Asia Times called Sistani “the most powerful man in Iraq today.”
True, Iran is in the middle of a political shake-up (which the Trumpet will cover in a future issue), and the details of the Iran-U.S. deal are still written in pencil. But our long-time readers know that one thing is for sure: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place …” (ii Pet. 1:19). Again, we must consider what our editor in chief wrote nearly a decade ago: “The most powerful [Islamic] country in the Middle East is Iran. Can you imagine the power they would have if they gained control of Iraq, the second-largest oil-producing country in the world?” (Trumpet, December 1994). Gerald Flurry has repeatedly raised this as a probable means by which Iran would rise to take its place in the unfolding panorama of Bible prophecy.
Yes, whether or not the current deal holds, it is sure that a deal will be done that places Iran at the helm of the Islamic nations. The prophecies in your Bible that clearly predict this simply cannot be broken (John 10:35). Write now for your free copy of our booklet The King of the South for the exciting details of events just ahead that are bound to affect the lives of every person on this planet.
