Argentine Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman dismissed British rhetoric over the Falklands as a lion’s roar that “does not inspire fear anymore.” Timerman wrote this in an article published in the Argentine daily, Página 12, on January 3—the 181st anniversary of Britain reclaiming the Falkland Islands from Argentina.

Titled “A Peaceful Struggle,” Timerman’s article claims that Britain is losing both domestic and international support in the Falklands dispute, and that it is on the wrong side of history.

While there is a lot of truth in Timerman’s article, it is however, combined with some error. In actuality, it is Timerman and Argentina that are on the wrong side of history, insofar as British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands is concerned. Digging into the complex history of the Falklands proves that they rightly belong to the British. The islands were named in 1690 by Capt. John Strong in honor of Anthony Cary, the fifth Viscount Falkland of Scotland—over a century before Argentina gained independence from Spain in 1816.

After Argentina made its first attempt to wrest control of the Falklands, the British stood their ground and reclaimed the islands on Jan. 3, 1833.

Insofar as domestic support for British sovereignty over the Falklands is concerned, there is significant pro-Britain sentiment. Last year, 99.8 percent of Falklanders voted to remain under British rule.

To the British, the Falklands are non-negotiable. Prime Minister David Cameron promised his “continued support in countering the Argentine government’s campaign to claim the islands’ resources.” He assured Falklanders on Dec. 25, 2013:

The British government will remain steadfast in its commitment to your sovereignty and security. The Argentine government will never succeed in any attempt to misrepresent the history of your Islands or question your right to self-determination. Britain will always be ready to defend the Falkland Islands.

But how long will the British hold on to the Falkland Islands? History indicates that, in spite of the rhetoric, it may not be long.

The “lion” reference used by Timerman seems to indicate Argentina recognizes that, although Britain’s military is a shell of its former self, it still has power. The lion on the UK’s royal coat of arms represents the royalty, bravery and strength that the kingdom historically displayed around the world. When Argentina invaded the Falklands on April 2, 1982, the British speedily launched an amphibious assault that trounced the Argentinians in the 10-week Falklands War.

Unfortunately, the Britain of 1982 is different than the Britain of today.

Timerman condemned Britain for ignoring UN resolutions to negotiate over the islands, claiming that “such behavior undermines attempts by the international community to have all countries accept the decisions of the United Nations to achieve a peaceful resolution of conflicts” (translation ours throughout).

The Argentine foreign minister claimed that all African and Latin American countries along the South Atlantic Ocean condemned British military presence in that region.

He then mentioned that Argentina, in its “peaceful struggle,” has the support of “over 90 solidarity groups in countries on five continents.” Timerman highlighted some of the significant summits of 2013 that were held in London (under the EU umbrella), Mexico City and Havana.

In 2010, Britain began the exploration of oil and natural gas around the petroleum-rich islands. Argentina used this as an excuse to heighten tensions. Timerman wrote that Argentina expressed concern to the International Maritime Organization about “the increasing militarization of the South Atlantic by the United Kingdom, and the danger to the marine environment, posed by the development of unilateral British oil exploration activities.”

Argentina and the Mercosur nations of South America already have numerous restrictive laws and economic sanctions against British vessels and oil from the Falklands.

Héctor Timerman concluded by noting the “historic decision of creating a dedicated government agency on the [Falklands] Question” that was made late last year by Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner—wife of controversial former President Nestor Kirchner. He then vowed: “In the face of both verbal and military threats, from the colonial power, our country will continue insisting that [the UK] complies with international law and the resolutions of the United Nations.”

Will Britain eventually cave in to international pressure to back away from the Falklands? The history of how Britain easily gave up the colonies, territories, sea ports and sea gates which once made it the great British Empire proves that such an outcome is possible.

The “more sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1:19) indicates that despite Britain’s tough talk, it will lose the Falklands. The Trumpet has often referred to the prophecy in Leviticus 26:19 about the “pride” or will of the British being broken. The power potential may still be there, but the will to use that power is being broken. Britain is indeed a “lion,” but its roar does not scare anyone anymore.

Herbert W. Armstrong’s book The United States and Britain in Prophecy explains the specific prophecies in the Bible that show why God gifted Britain with foreign territories like the Falkland Islands. It also explains why and how those blessings would be lost. The Falklands will be another one of those God-gifted territories that Britain will lose.

For more on this subject and why the Trumpet can make these predictions, request Mr. Armstrong’s free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. Additionally, read “Changing of the Guard” from our free booklet on Mr. Armstrong’s accurate forecasts, He Was Right.