Apocalypse Now?

Is Iran planning a cataclysmic strike for August 22?
August 10, 2006
By Joel C. Rosenberg

Is Iran planning an apocalyptic strike against Israel and/or the United States for August 22? If so, what should the U.S. do to protect Americans and our ally? Such questions are worrying a growing number of officials in the White House, at the CIA, and at the Pentagon, and for good reason.

As a devout Shiite Muslim, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling colleagues in Tehran that he believes the end of the world is rapidly approaching. He also believes that the way to hasten the coming of the Islamic Messiah known as the ?Hidden Imam? or the ?Mahdi? is to launch a catastrophic global jihad, first against Israel (the ?little Satan?) and then against the U.S. (the ?Great Satan?). What?s more, Ahmadinejad is widely believed to be pursuing nuclear weapons that would give him the ability to carry out his apocalyptic religious views. Some experts even speculate that Iran may already have several atomic bombs and the means to deliver them.

In recent days, Ahmadinejad and his advisers have said that Iran will answer the world regarding the future of its nuclear program on August 22. That happens to be a very significant date for Muslims: It is the anniversary of the supposed ?night flight? by Mohammed from Saudi Arabia to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to heaven and back again. There is a worry that Ahmadinejad is planning some sort of apocalyptic attack as his ??response? on August 22. If so, time is short and the clock is ticking.

It is hard for many Americans to imagine an Iranian leader (or any other world leader) actually trying to bring about the end of the world by launching a nuclear attack to destroy millions of Jews and Christians. But it is precisely this type of attack that I wrote about in my recent political thrillers, The Ezekiel Option and The Copper Scroll. One of my goals was to help people understand this brand of radical Islamic thinking and its implications for Western civilization. On page 358 of The Ezekiel Option, a fictional Islamic character insists that Israel is going to be ?wiped off the face of the map forever.? Five months after Option was published last June, Ahmadinejad gave a speech vowing to wipe Israel ?off the map? forever. In the novel, Iran forms a military alliance with Russia and starts buying state-of-the-art weaponry from Moscow to accomplish its apocalyptic objectives. Last December, fiction again became reality, when Iran signed a $1 billion deal with Russia to buy missiles and others weapons.

Muslims are not the only ones who have apocalyptic end-times views, of course. As an evangelical Christian from an Orthodox Jewish heritage, my novels are based on a number of ?end times? prophecies that the Bible says will be fulfilled in ?the last days.? For example, the Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel ? writing 2,500 years ago ? described a future Middle Eastern war to annihilate Israel that is known today by Bible scholars as the ?War of Gog and Magog.? Jews and Christians who take Ezekiel?s prophecies seriously believe that at the last minute the God of Israel will supernaturally intervene to defeat Israel?s enemies in this war. By contrast, the Muslim version of the ?War of ?Gog and Magog? found in the Koran concludes with Muslims winning. The Ezekiel Option and The Copper Scroll imagine how such prophecies could play themselves out in modern times. But suddenly this is no longer the stuff of fiction. Ahmadinejad actually seems intent on launching the ?War of Gog and Magog.?

Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, arguably the world?s foremost expert on Middle Eastern history, wrote an essay for the Wall Street Journal last Tuesday warning that Ahmadinejad?s apocalyptic objectives could lead to a ?cataclysmic? attack on August 22. Lewis observed that there it is not possible to say with any certainty that such an attack is planned, but he felt compelled to explain to Americans just how dangerous Ahmadinejad?s thinking is, especially in light of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian ?end times? theology, such as the ?War of Gog and Magog? and ?Armageddon.? How, Lewis asked, can you negotiate with a man who believes it is his religious duty and mission to bring about the end of the world? How can you deter a man who wants to die and go to paradise, but believes he won?t actually die in such a war because Allah is on his side to kill millions of ?infidels??

Lewis?s warning was prudent and needed, as was his careful explanation of the apocalyptic thinking driving the Iranian leadership at present. But Lewis?s conclusion was puzzling. He writes:

?How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death?? he wrote. ?Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD [the Cold War policy of Mutual Assured Destruction].?

?This is indeed a wise ?long-term? strategy, trying to win over Islamic moderates, but Lewis writes as if the danger posed by Iran is not an immediate one, as if we have the luxury of relying on far-sighted strategies. But ?Lewis himself is suggesting that Iran may be planning ?cataclysmic? attacks to begin as early as August 22. That doesn?t leave a lot of time for long-term planning. We all hope and pray that August 22 is not the day Ahmadinejad has chosen to launch the apocalypse, but there is little doubt in the White House and at the CIA that the Iranian leader is feverishly trying to build, buy, or steal nuclear weapons, and that he will quite likely use them once he has them.

All of this raises very serious questions for the president and the nation. How much time do we have to pursue a diplomatic track with Iran? At what point do we have to conclude that negotiations are going nowhere? Are we prepared to live with a nuclear-armed Iran? If so, how? If not, what is the president prepared to do to protect Americans and our allies from an Iranian nuclear-strike, or nuclear blackmail?

In his famous ?axis of evil? speech on January 29, 2002, President Bush made the following case:

?We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation?s security. We?ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world?s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world?s most destructive weapons.?

Today, the country is deeply divided over whether using military force in Iraq was the right thing to do. But the Iranian nuclear threat is now far worse than the Iraqi threat of having or obtaining weapons of mass destruction was then. President Bush has a decision to make and precious little time to make it. For let?s be clear: should Iran go nuclear on this president?s watch, all the gains made to date in the War on Terror will be wiped out overnight. That is not a legacy this president wants, nor one this nation can afford.

? Joel C. Rosenberg, a one-time aide to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky, is a New York Times best-selling author of Middle East-based political thrillers. His new novel is The Copper Scroll. His forthcoming non-fiction book is entitled Epicenter: Why The Current Rumblings In The Middle East Will Change Your World.

Does that mean we won’t make it to december 2012?

Damn, I was so hyped up about that mathematical time wave coming to an end…

DAMN YOU NOSTRADAMUS!!!

lets have a sweepstake.

I say it isn’t going to happen before the end of August.

That Rosenburg guy. Seems cool. Bit Paranoid maybe. The Gog and Magog shit is crazy. I’d rather be playing cards on bagog. Let’s hope a) amhal;jih’sh (OR WHATEVER) doesn’t get nuclear arms for Iran b) USA/coalition don’t act like arrogant pricks and start armageddon by throwing their weight around

I thought we wiped out Iran back in July. Weren’t we promised a war in July?

I don’t see Iran doing that, being a little off-center doesn’t mean they are suicidal. I think their rhetoric and saber rattling comes from a fear of being attacked.

But then you never know, world leaders have done some crazy stuff.

Does anyone else miss Khatami?

1919: Meteorologist Albert Porta predicted that the conjunction of 6 planets would generate a magnetic current that would cause the sun to explode and engulf the earth on Dec 17th.

1953: David Davidson wrote a book titled “The Great Pyramid, Its Divine Message”. In it, he predicted that the world would end in August of that year.

1957: The Watchtower magazine quoted a pastor from California, Mihran Ask, as saying that "Sometime between April 16 and 23, 1957, Armageddon will sweep the world! Millions of persons will perish in its flames and the land will be scorched.’

1978: Chuck Smith, Pastor of Calvary Chapel in Cost Mesa, CA, predicted the rapture in 1981.

1982: Pat Robertson predicted a few years in advance that the world would end in the fall of 1982.

1982: Astronomers John Gribben & Setphen Plagemann predicted the “Jupiter Effect” in 1974. They wrote that when various planets were aligned on the same side of the sun, tidal forces would create solar flares, radio interruptions, rainfall and temperature disturbances and massive earthquakes. The planets did align as seen from earth, as they do regularly. Nothing unusual happened.

And over 50 other similar predictions can be read about here: Failed end of the world predictions from 30 to 1920 CE

MY personal prediction is that we’ll be around this year, next year, in 2012 and beyond but that we’ll still have to put up with the idiotic rantings of gullible nincompoops.

I agree with you z-man, i think they’re terrified and growling like a cornered dog. They are weaker than the USA so the only deterrent against suffering a similar fate to their neighbours is to act like they’ll strike first and hard. Fucked up logic, but they do have a cunt as a leader (not the only nation to suffer this though)

Good point man

Excellent post pookie.

But war between several nuclear-armed nations is a bit different to vague rapture-chat and ‘magnetic waves’.

If enough people push the button, we could get sizzled

Suicide Now maybe.

Israel supposedly has over 300 nukes in it’s inventory. The US over 5000. Either country would devestate Iran if they used a nuke. The burden of proof would be very low for either country to retaliate.

No. 12 wouldn’t have anything to come back to in Iran.

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
I agree with you z-man, i think they’re terrified and growling like a cornered dog. They are weaker than the USA so the only deterrent against suffering a similar fate to their neighbours is to act like they’ll strike first and hard. Fucked up logic, but they do have a cunt as a leader (not the only nation to suffer this though)

Good point man[/quote]

All that fear hasn’t stopped Iran from being the money man for the hizbollah islamo-nazis.

I think the guy is certifiably nuts. An islamo-nazi-fascist for sure, though.

That’s true rainjack. I think the guy is just wrong. I hope that neither US/Israel or Iran will use nuclear weapons. Any country who uses them is evil by default, far more so than terrorism. Diplomacy must surely be used to chill everyone out.

I think there’s enough countries that dislike each other to destroy the whole earth in a few hours, how many modern nukes does it take?

I certainly don’t feel that threatening the guy (mahaghgl;pouwj) in a speech (George Bush) is gonna do any good. If the guy’s a cornered dog, don’t shout in his face, eh

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Excellent post pookie.

But war between several nuclear-armed nations is a bit different to vague rapture-chat and ‘magnetic waves’.

If enough people push the button, we could get sizzled[/quote]

Yes, atomic mushrooms can ruin a peaceful day for most anyone.

But none of the main countries mentioned here are confirmed nuclear nations. Israel is “suspected” of having a US supplied arsenal but they’ve never confirmed or denied it. Iran too, is “supposed” by some analyst to already have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them (camel back?)

High tech weaponry is difficult to produce and maintain. As far as I know, none of those “supposed” weapons have ever been tested (or we’d have detected the tests) so there’s a lot that can go wrong in firing untested nuclear missiles in a war, including hitting allies or your own cities.

I think most of the nuclear saber rattling done in that region is all talk and no walk. Those countries that have the bomb (Pakistan, India and maybe Israel) are all western allies. Furthermore, ASAIK, they all lack ICBM capabilities, so those missiles aren’t coming here.

[quote]pookie wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
Excellent post pookie.

But war between several nuclear-armed nations is a bit different to vague rapture-chat and ‘magnetic waves’.

If enough people push the button, we could get sizzled

Yes, atomic mushrooms can ruin a peaceful day for most anyone.

But none of the main countries mentioned here are confirmed nuclear nations. Israel is “suspected” of having a US supplied arsenal but they’ve never confirmed or denied it. Iran too, is “supposed” by some analyst to already have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them (camel back?)

High tech weaponry is difficult to produce and maintain. As far as I know, none of those “supposed” weapons have ever been tested (or we’d have detected the tests) so there’s a lot that can go wrong in firing untested nuclear missiles in a war, including hitting allies or your own cities.

I think most of the nuclear saber rattling done in that region is all talk and no walk. Those countries that have the bomb (Pakistan, India and maybe Israel) are all western allies. Furthermore, ASAIK, they all lack ICBM capabilities, so those missiles aren’t coming here.

[/quote]

One of the unusual side effects of India and Pakistan both getting nukes is the movement towards peace from both sides. Mutual Assured Destruction is not a solution that either side finds pleasant.

[quote]Z-Man wrote:
One of the unusual side effects of India and Pakistan both getting nukes is the movement towards peace from both sides. Mutual Assured Destruction is not a solution that either side finds pleasant.[/quote]

I guess it makes people think a bit more before rushing into war.

Would giving The Bomb to all 193 countries effect World Peace?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Z-Man wrote:
One of the unusual side effects of India and Pakistan both getting nukes is the movement towards peace from both sides. Mutual Assured Destruction is not a solution that either side finds pleasant.

I guess it makes people think a bit more before rushing into war.

Would giving The Bomb to all 193 countries effect World Peace?
[/quote]

Interesting point. But it’s always the aggressive states that want the best military isn’t it

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Interesting point. But it’s always the aggressive states that want the best military isn’t it[/quote]

I think any state that feels threathened in some way will want to have enough military to be able to oppose the threat. Country that don’t feel threatened by anyone (Canada, for example) have small armies and spend (too?) little on defense.

I don’t think so.

Paranoid delusions.

OMGZORS THE WORLD EXPLODED TODAY

Why I don’t fear Iran:

Iran shoots missile at United States, missile is shot down halfway over the Atlantic Ocean.

United States shoots missile back, turns Iran into a crater.

End of story