U.S. Will Swerve First in Game of 'Atomic Chicken' with Iran

By Bob Maginnis
BobMaginnis.com



The U.S. and Iran are playing a game of chicken over Tehran’s atomic weapons program. Chances are the U.S. will swerve first to avoid war unless Israel attacks. Then it will be up to Tehran to decide how bad things become, but in the end Iran gets the bomb.

Last November the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), alerted the world to credible evidence of Iran’s nuclear weaponization program. Subsequently, the U.S. led the West to impose the harshest sanctions yet meant to compel Tehran to abandon atomic weapons.

Iran responded to the sanctions by pledging its nuclear program was for “peaceful” purposes and then threatening that if the sanctions, especially those targeting its oil exports, weren’t abandoned it would close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the flow of 35 percent of the world’s daily oil supply. The U.S. countered it would use military force to keep the strait open.

This tense standoff is complicated by Israel’s growing concern with Iran’s quickened atomic weapons pace and the growing chasm of cooperation with the U.S.

Two weeks ago General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Israel to discuss the Iran crisis. “We have to acknowledge that they [Israelis]…see that threat differently than we do. It’s existential to them,” Dempsey admitted to the National Journal. That difference explains why Jerusalem is the wild card in the game of atomic chicken.

Also, the Obama administration further distanced itself from “wild card” Israel by suspending [nice word for canceling] the long-planned Austere Challenge 12 bilateral anti-ballistic missile exercise to be held in Israel. Then Obama officials denied U.S. responsibility for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists but said Israel should claim credit. So much for supporting our friends!

Consider answers to three questions related to this geopolitical game of atomic chicken.

1. Why Will the U.S. Swerve to Avoid Conflict with Iran?

It will swerve because it fears the consequences. Gen. Dempsey told the National Journal the U.S. is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but he cautioned the use of force “would be really destabilizing.”

A conflict with Iran would divert resources from other efforts such as the war next door in Afghanistan. Tehran already has connections to the Taliban and could easily help them further destabilize Afghanistan and provide sanctuary. Besides, President Obama is speeding up our Afghan exit which could slow should Iran step-in vis-à-vis the Iraq war.

The U.S. will swerve because the new sanctions appear to be working. Clearly they weakened Iran’s currency by as much as 40 percent but that could have a silver lining. That makes imports more expensive and exports cheaper, which could actually spark the resurgence of Iran’s textile industry and reduce 20 percent unemployment, a “godsend” for Tehran’s mullahs.

Iran’s oil sector, the primary target of the new sanctions, will escape serious damage, however. Iran will continue to sell much of its oil to China and besides, a Saudi source told Reuters, “What we say is that oil is fungible. Iranian oil will still find its way into the market.”

The only way to bring Iran to its financial knees is to impose a massive blockade like the 1962 U.S. quarantine of Cuba. That’s the view of Israeli finance minister Yuval Steinitz who opined to Bloomberg.com a “massive” aerial and naval blockade of Iran that “no one can even go out” might deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But a blockade is an act of war, something this administration won’t consider.

The U.S. will swerve because Iran will continue faking cooperation with the IAEA. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein played that game with weapons inspectors for many years as does North Korea. Libya’s former dictator fooled the West into believing he gave up weapons of mass destruction until after the recent revolution bunkers full of chemical munitions were revealed.

A team of IAEA inspectors arrived in Iran on January 29. Iran’s IAEA envoy said the visit shows that Iran’s nuclear activities are “peaceful” and “aimed at foiling the enemies’ plots and their political propaganda.” Sound familiar?

2. Why Won’t Iran Swerve?

Iran won’t swerve because it refuses to “give up” its nuclear program. That program is a national symbol of greatness. Tehran means to leverage it to gain regional dominance and theologically, Iran’s conservative ruling clerics see atomic weapons as the mechanism for ushering in a worldwide caliphate, Islamic rule.

Iran won’t swerve because it has the upper hand over the U.S. Tehran has President Obama scared it will shut the Strait of Hormuz, which could seriously jeopardize his re-election chances vis-à-vis another war and cause skyrocketing gas prices.

Evidence of Obama’s concern came in the form of a “secret” letter to Iran’s leadership. Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’l, said, “The letter held nothing new” and a member of Iran’s parliament opined Obama’s letter shows the Americans’ weakness.

Iran won’t swerve because it has significant military ability, enough to close the Strait of Hormuz and hurt American regional interests. It has three Kilo class silent submarines, 19 mini-subs, hundreds of sea mines, shore-based cruise missiles, and high performance boats for swarming larger vessels. Tehran can sink an aircraft carrier and then launch ballistic missiles at regional targets to include Israel. It also has the unconventional Quds Force and proxy terror groups with a proven history of violence to disrupt the region.

Last week, Ayatollah Khamene’l said the U.S. and its allies might “soon realize that they have no arrows left in their bag of sanctions.” That certainly appears to be the case, which explains why Israel is the wild card in the game of atomic chicken.

3. What Might Persuade Israel to Attack Iran?

Last week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he is working to increase international pressure on Iran, but admitted that so far sanctions are unsuccessful in halting Tehran’s nuclear program.

Israel won’t wait much longer, however. Iran may be just months away from having enough fissile material for a bomb, an Israeli red line.

At least two factors are at play in Israel’s attack decision. First, Jerusalem considers the alleged consequences of an attack overblown—such as the doomsday prediction that it would plunge the entire region into war.

Recent experience indicates an attack won’t set off a catastrophic set of events. For example, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein vowed if attacked he would “burn half of Israel.” He was attacked but his 40 Scud rocket counterattack was a dud. Similarly the 2006 Israel war against Iran terror proxy Hezbollah caused limited harm in spite of thousands of rockets landing inside Israel.

Second, Jerusalem wants to delay having to live with an atomic-armed Iran. Israel understands Iran has been preparing for an attack for years—widely dispersing its atomic weapons program in deeply bunkered facilities. It accepts that a strike may only set back Iran’s weapons program a couple years, but Israeli leaders believe a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable and delaying that threat worth the costs.

This view was expressed last week in Jerusalem by Maj. Gen Amir Eshel, chief of the army’s planning division, according to The New York Times. He asked, “Who would have dared deal with Gadaffi or Saddam Hussein if they had a nuclear capability? No way.” Then he cited a conversation with an Indian officer about that country’s response to the 2008 Pakistani terrorist attacks in Mumbai. “When the other side [Pakistan] has a nuclear capability and is prepared to use it, you think twice,” the officer replied.

The U.S. will swerve first in the atomic game of chicken with Iran. But Israel, the wild card, has weighed the consequences and appears ready to attack understanding it can only delay the inevitable: Iran will join the exclusive atomic weapons club.


Related Links

---

IAEA, Iran see more talks ahead on nuclear issue • Reuters
India Won’t Join EU Sanctions on Iran • WorldThreats.com (Ryan Mauro)
In Israel, UN chief argues against attack on Iran • FOX News
Iranian Websites Publish Threats against U.S. Targets in Gulf • MEMRI
Group urges credible U.S. military threat to Iran • MSNBC

---

Anti-Israel Christians Ponder Divestment

By Mark Tooley
Institute on Religion & Democracy



Both the 7.6 million United Methodist Church and 2 million member Presbyterian Church (USA) will ponder anti-Israel divestment at their governing conventions later this year. Specifically targeted are 3 firms that ostensibly profit from the “occupation:” Caterpillar, Motorola, and Hewlett-Packard.

Perhaps with this battle in mind, Friends of Sabeel-North America (FOSNA), a chief anti-Israel advocate among churches, has hired a Presbyterian minister as its new organizer to reach a “wider Christian audience.” Sabeel’s describes his goal as addressing the “increasing awareness among American Christians and the Palestinian Christian community and the principles required for a ‘just peace’ between Israel and Palestine.”

In other words, the organizer will rally U.S. Christians initially for anti-Israel divestment and more ultimately against any special U.S. friendship for Israel, with the final goal of deconstructing Israel as a primarily Jewish democracy.

The new Sabeel organizer is the Rev. Donald Wagner, who recently served at Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia. He previously headed Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding, which seeks to disengage U.S. evangelicals from their traditional pro-Israel stance. In the 1980s he headed the Palestine Human Rights Campaign. Seemingly Rev. Wagner combines Mainline Protestant, evangelical and Anabaptist connections that will greatly enhance his anti-Israel work.

Mainline Protestant elites have been anti-Israel since the 1967 war. They identify Israel as a Western, pro-U.S. power and colonialist victimizer, against which faithful Christians must labor under a Liberation Theology theme. In contrast, evangelicals remain the largest pro-Israel demographic in America. But increasingly the Evangelical Left is persuading evangelical elites (especially in academia and missions groups) who are anxious to disassociate from the Religious Right to identify with purportedly oppressed Palestinians. And Anabaptists, such as Mennonites and Brethren, are pacifists and traditionally few in number. But both left-leaning Mainline Protestants and evangelicals increasingly embrace the Anabaptist tradition to justify their contempt for America and its “empire.”

The Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem understandably wants to deploy FOSNA as its U.S. arm to appeal to all these key American religious constituencies. Rev. Wagner seems ideal for the task. ”I am very pleased to have Don leading FOSNA’s programs,” explained Sabeel founder and chief the Rev. Naim Ateek, who is a Palestinian Anglican clergy. “He demonstrated long ago his passion for justice for oppressed Palestinians, and he has been committed ever since.”

Chief among Wagner’s goals is promoting “Kairos Palestine,” the 2009 appeal by Palestinian church clergy for Western churches to renounce and boycott Israel. The Religious Left in America is not typically interested in persecuted churches around the world, especially if the tormentors are Islamist or Marxist. But Palestinian Christians uniquely attract their sympathy because their plight can be blamed on Israel. The Kairos appeal also likens Israel to Apartheid South Africa, which Sabeel is anxious to propagate in its campaign to make Israel as illegitimate as the old Afrikaner, racist state.

“Kairos Palestine is a hopeful and natural partner for FOSNA and Sabeel worldwide,” Rev. Wagner enthused in a news release. He acclaimed the Kairos clergy for having “been prophetic voices throughout Europe, Canada, and the United States on BDS, particularly with the churches.”

The Kairos movement has spawned supportive caucuses in different Protestant denominations. “United Methodist Kairos Response” recently hosted a reception for delegates to their denomination’s upcoming General Conference. The hostess cited “profits,” “campaign donations,” and “arms sales” as reasons for continued U.S. support of Israel, against which good Methodists must contend. And she insisted that “selective” divestment is aimed only at ending the “occupation” and not at Israel itself. Naturally, this opposition to the occupation never explains how Israel is to completely withdraw from the West Bank when Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish democracy.

The Religious Left, with groups like Sabeel and the Kairos movement, spotlights Israeli settlements in the West Bank while claiming it seeks mutual existence between Israel and Palestinians. But there is almost always an underlying discomfort with the whole project of Israel as a Jewish democracy. Rev. Wagner’s 2003 book, Dying in the Land of Promise, seemingly likens the “past one hundred-year process of Zionist occupation in Palestine” to a killer vine killing beautiful rose bushes. “The Israeli occupation and settlement strategies that have taken over most of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights are like invading vines and weeds,” he further, sort of, clarified.

Much of Rev. Wagner’s 35 years’ worth of anti-Israel work obsesses over the supposedly sinister tentacles of Christian Zionism. “Christian Zionists have traded the mantle of the biblical prophets for an idolatry of militarism and the nation state,” he explained in a 2003 Christian Century magazine article. But typically radical Islamists, even apocalyptic Iranian clerics calling for Israel’s incineration, do not arouse anywhere near equal concern.

Groups like Sabeel, with help from clergy like Rev. Wagner, claim to speak both for, and to, Christians. But the ultimate beneficiaries of their campaigns to delegitimize Israel seem to be radical Islamists. And the ultimate victims of what they propose seem to be both Jews and Christians.


Related Links

---

Culture War and the Global Church • American Spectator (Mark Tooley)
FOSNA Names New Program Director • FOSNA.org
Global Jihadists and their leftists supporters planning to ‘Occupy Jerusalem’ • Bare Naked Islam
U of P on the decline • Renew America (Tabitha Korol)
BDS and academia • Jerusalem Post

---

Atomic Agency Checks Iran

By David Dolan
DDolan.com



A high level delegation from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency recently traveled to Iran. Officials said the main purpose of the visit was to check on reports that the Shiite Muslim regime has stepped up its uranium enrichment program. Highly enriched uranium is the main component in the production of nuclear weapons. Iran's clerical regime continues to claim that the program is designed for peaceful purposes. However late last year, the Atomic Agency released a report detailing evidence that Iran is secretly working on producing nuclear weapons.

The former head of the UN agency's inspections unit, Olli Hein-onen, published an article in the prestigious Foreign Policy magazine this month in which he estimates Iran is now within just one year of having enough highly enriched uranium to produce a basic nuclear warhead.

Meanwhile Iran continues to blame Israel for the assassination of yet another Iranian nuclear scientist. The scientist was killed in mid January when his vehicle was destroyed by a roadside bomb. The slain man was a deputy director of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Iran's Vice President blamed the US and Israel for the killing.


Related Links

---

IAEA to End Tehran Trip Amid Tensions Over Iran Nuclear Work • Bloomberg
Israel Sees Narrowing Window for Attack on Iran • Military.com
Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds • Washington Post
Israel's 'Iran-buster' drone in test flight crash • Mirror.co.uk
Mossad chief holds secret U.S. meetings on Iran nuclear threat, Senate panel reveals • Haaretz

---

Netanyahu Not Hopeful on Future of Peace Talks

By Ryan Jones
Israel Today



Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday sounded a pessimistic tone when discussing with his cabinet ministers the future potential of direct peace talks with the Palestinian Authority.

"The signs are not particularly good," said Netanyahu in reference to exploratory talks currently taking place in Amman, Jordan. "But I hope they will rebound and we can make progress."

Netanyahu criticized the Palestinian leadership for the seeming failure thus far of the Amman meetings, noting that the Palestinians "have refused to discuss with us our security needs."

A day earlier, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas tried to lay the blame on Netanyahu and his government, insisting that "Israeli intransigence" was behind the failure of the Amman talks, which the Palestinians have threatened to pull out of if Israel does not meet their demands within a matter of days.

Abbas charged that Israel had failed to provide a "clear vision" regarding future borders and the removal of Jews from Judea and Samaria. Israel maintains that making such commitments at this point would prejudice the outcome of negotiations, and leave Israel with no bargaining chips.

Netanyahu has for years been urging Abbas to return to direct bilateral negotiations without preconditions. Abbas has during that same time been doing his utmost to paint Netanyahu as the primary obstacle to peace over his refusal to accept preconditions.


Related Links

---

New Mideast Talks Hit an Impasse • Voice of America
Netanyahu pessimistic about future of peace talks • Jerusalem Post
Israel, Palestinians exchange blame over talks • YnetNews
Netanyahu Hopes PA Officials 'Come to Their Senses' • Arutz Sheva
Fatah to include Hamas in deciding Palestinian strategy: official • Trend.az

---

Is the Kingdom "Within You" or "In Your Midst"?

By Dr. Michael J. Vlach
Theological Studies



One of the most debated passages regarding the kingdom of God is Luke 17:20-21. Is this verse teaching that the kingdom of God is a spiritual entity that resides in the hearts of men?

The New International Version translates this passage in a way that indicates that the kingdom is an inner reality:

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you” (emphasis mine).

But the New American Standard Bible translates it differently:

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (emphasis mine).

We will look at two issues here. First, what does Jesus mean when He says that the kingdom of God is not coming with signs and observation? And second, is Jesus saying that the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom that resides in the hearts of men, or is He declaring a nearness and a presence of the kingdom in His person?

I’ll address the second issue first.

As I survey various Bible translations they seem to split down the middle on this issue. You can read several that declare that entos humon should be translated “within you” while an equal number confidently claim that “in your midst” is the best translation. It does appear that most of the modern versions opt for the “in your midst” understanding (NASB, HCSB, ESV). Walter Elwell, when discussing twentieth century discoveries and translations, stated:

“Another example is that in koine Greek, the expression entos humon (literally, ‘inside of you’) often meant ‘within reach.’ Thus, Jesus’ statement in Luke 17:21 could mean, ‘the kingdom is within reach.’” [1]

In situations like this where there is a translation issue I think it best to see if the context can shed light on which understanding is correct. There are two contextual reasons why I prefer the “in your midst” view and not “within you.”

First, the immediate audience to whom Jesus was speaking was the Pharisees (“He answered them and said”). It is highly unlikely that Jesus would say the kingdom of God was in their hearts. Just read the woes to the Pharisees of Matthew 23 and you will see that the Pharisees had wicked hearts, not hearts in which the kingdom resided. Some have claimed that Jesus was speaking in a generic fashion and making a general statement that the kingdom is an inner spiritual reality. But verse 20 makes it clear that the Pharisees were the recipients of His words.

Second, in kingdom passages that follow, both Luke 19:11-27 and 21:31 indicate that the kingdom is not a present spiritual kingdom in the heart but a kingdom that will come in the future. Jesus offers the parable of the minas to counter the idea that the kingdom would be established immediately (Luke 19:11). With Luke 21:31 Jesus indicates that the kingdom would only be near with the events of the coming Tribulation Period. If Jesus was preaching a spiritual kingdom of the heart why does He make it so clear after 17:21 that the kingdom was a future entity?

Are There Signs for the Kingdom?

Concerning the second issue, why does Jesus say not to look for signs of the kingdom in Luke 17:20? I believe the reason is because the kingdom was present in Jesus’ person as He stood before them. Perhaps what Jesus is saying is, “Don’t look for signs of the kingdom because, the kingdom is right in front of you with My presence and works.” It is interesting that when Jesus is discussing future events in Luke 21 He tells His apostles that cosmic signs and other future events are signs of the kingdom’s nearness.

“So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near” (Luke 21:31).

Note the difference between Luke 17:21 and Luke 21:31:

• Luke 17:20-21—Jesus says not to look for signs concerning the kingdom.
• Luke 21:31—Jesus says to look for signs concerning the kingdom.

The best way to harmonize these two passages is to understand that Jesus’ bodily presence carries with it a presence of the kingdom, but when He is gone from the earth, the kingdom is not present. At the time of Luke 17:20-21 Jesus was bodily present, thus there was no need to look for signs of the kingdom. The kingdom was present in His person. But when He is bodily absent from earth one can look for signs of His return and the coming of the kingdom of God (Luke 21:31).

I know that there is a lot of debate over Luke 17:20-21 and I respect opinions contrary to mine. But I am convinced by the context that “in your midst” is a better translation than “within you.”


Endnotes

---

[1] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 2001, p. 207.

---