George W. Bush: Iraq Was a Biblical War Against Gog and Magog

In 2003, just before the Iraq War, former President George W. Bush tried once more to get the support of France. His approach to French President Jacques Chirac was straightforward, drawing on thousands of years of history and on higher authority: "This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins." This, he added, was the "holy" war in the Middle East, predicted in the Bible, against Gog and Magog.

For you heathen out there, Gog and Magog are first mentioned in the Old Testament books of Genesis and Ezekiel, prophesied to come out of the north to attack Israel. They make their big appearance in Revelations, Chapter 20, Verse 7-9, as the Devil's commanders in the final battle of Good and Evil:

7 - And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 - And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 - And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Some evangelists believe that Arab nations, supported by others, have to attack Israel in The Apocalypse for Gog and Magog, the enemies of Israel, to return and be defeated before the return of Jesus Christ to Earth.

More importantly, some people in very important political positions believe this. Chirac's advisors, according to a 2007 article in the university review Allez Savoir and now Chirac's memoirs, were concerned enough to ask the advice of Thomas Romer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne.

And it was not the only time Bush held up his wars as a religious duty. In June 2003, he told the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on "a mission from God" in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord. About the same time, US military officers were adding Biblical quotes to the cover slides of intelligence reports from Iraq.

This is not to deny that there were other reasons for the US wars from 2001 to 2009, and of course the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, irrespective of Gog and Magog, is still going strong. Still, rest assured that America's wars --- of Earthly or Biblical necessity --- were overseen by a "true believer" in the Bush years.

President Obama's Weekly Address: "Sacrifice"

Last Saturday President Obama, in his weekly address, followed up his speech at the US Naval Academy with an emphasis on the sacrifice of US military forces for the security and unity of the country.

Of course, the speech is timed for the Memorial Day holiday but it also testifies to the distinction of Obama's Presidency, even after four months in office. In contrast to President Clinton, who was stigmatised as "unreliable" on military matters, Obama has been careful to establish his credibility as a strong Commander-in-Chief.

Here is the video and the transcript:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VikooiwQ7Q&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

OBAMA : This Memorial Day weekend, Americans will gather on lawns and porches, fire up the grill, and enjoy the company of family, friends, and neighbors. But this is not only a time for celebration, it is also a time to reflect on what this holiday is all about; to pay tribute to our fallen heroes; and to remember the servicemen and women who cannot be with us this year because they are standing post far from home – in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.

On Friday, I traveled to Annapolis, where I spoke at the Commencement of the United States Naval Academy. It was an honor to address some of America’s newest sailors and Marines as their Commander-in-Chief. Looking out at all of those young men and women, I was reminded of the extraordinary service that they are rendering to our country. And I was reminded, too, of all of the sacrifices that their parents, siblings, and loved ones make each day on their behalf and on our behalf.

Our fighting men and women – and the military families who love them – embody what is best in America. And we have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us.

And yet, all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve. That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear – and all who have worn – the proud uniform of our country.

And that is a sacred trust I am committed to keeping as President of the United States. That is why I will send our servicemen and women into harm’s way only when it is necessary, and ensure that they have the training and equipment they need when they enter the theater of war.

That is why we are building a 21st century Department of Veterans Affairs with the largest single-year funding increase in three decades. It’s a commitment that will help us provide our veterans with the support and benefits they have earned, and expand quality health care to a half million more veterans.

That is why, this week, I signed a bill that will eliminate some of the waste and inefficiency in our defense projects – reform that will better protect our nation, better protect our troops, and save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

And that is why we are laying a new foundation for our economy so that when our troops return home and take off the uniform, they can find a good job, provide for their families, and earn a college degree on a Post-9/11 GI Bill that will offer them the same opportunity to live out their dreams that was afforded our greatest generation.

These are some of the ways we can, must, and will honor the service of our troops and the sacrifice of their families. But we must also do our part, not only as a nation, but as individuals for those Americans who are bearing the burden of wars being fought on our behalf. That can mean sending a letter or a care package to our troops overseas. It can mean volunteering at a clinic where a wounded warrior is being treated or bringing supplies to a homeless veterans center. Or it can mean something as simple as saying "thank you" to a veteran you pass on the street.

That is what Memorial Day is all about. It is about doing all we can to repay the debt we owe to those men and women who have answered our nation’s call by fighting under its flag. It is about recognizing that we, as a people, did not get here by accident or good fortune alone. It’s about remembering the hard winter of 1776, when our fragile American experiment seemed doomed to fail; and the early battles of 1861 when a union victory was anything but certain; and the summer of 1944, when the fate of a world rested on a perilous landing unlike any ever attempted.

It’s about remembering each and every one of those moments when our survival as a nation came down not simply to the wisdom of our leaders or the resilience of our people, but to the courage and valor of our fighting men and women. For it is only by remembering these moments that we can truly appreciate a simple lesson of American life – that what makes all we are and all we aspire to be possible are the sacrifices of an unbroken line of Americans that stretches back to our nation’s founding.

That is the meaning of this holiday. That is a truth at the heart of our history. And that is a lesson I hope all Americans will carry with them this Memorial Day weekend and beyond.

Thank you.

The Power Politics Surrounding Iran

Shirvin Zeinalzadeh, who writes on Iranian affairs for Enduring America, evaluates the significance of Tehran's firing of a solid-fuel missile last week:

Iran last week successfully test-fired the controversial solid fuel ‘Sejjil 2’ missile, ahead of the upcoming Iranian Presidential elections and with prominent publicity and international attention.

The immediate reaction from Israeli and US outlets went farther, speculating that Iran would use this as a platform for nuclear weapons. Israeli foreign minister Avidgor Lieberman said, "Israel and the US share an understanding on strategic goals, first and foremost dismantling Iran from the ability to attain non-conventional arms."

The reality, however, is that the nuclear issue is peripheral to both the symbolic and military importance of the test-firing. This is once a statement by Iran , both to its own people and to the world, that a nationalist rallying around the flag will lead to self-sufficient military power.

Iran has no power whatsoever in its arsenal to reach the US mainland. Instead, Tehran's initiaitive is in the context of the creation of NATO and US strategic bases in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Diego Garcia.

Iran's justification, therefore, is that it is balancing the power in the region with its missile development A range of 2000 kilometres ensure that Iran can deter the US or Israel from attacking it through with the possibility of a counterstrike against any forces based in the area within the Sejjil’s range.

This notion was put forth in President Ahmadinejad's statement, "Today Iran has the power to turn any base that fires a bullet at Iran into hell." He added, "Today we declare that no country has the power to threaten Iran."

The power politics are in play, as Iran seeks to defend its sovereignty and territorial rights by boosting its defence system. As Ahmadinejad said, "Unfortunately today there are some people who think that compromise with enemies will remove threats, but experience has shown that whenever Iran softens its stance the enemies are emboldened."

Iran's Elections: Ahmadinejad Plays His Israel-US Cards

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been working flat-out to maximize his vote before the Iranian Presidential election on June 12. His ‘hard-line’ stand against the West was subtly elaborated when he referred to Israel with the words of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Revolution: , when on Friday. Referring to Israel, he quoted Khomeini’s words: "They are like dogs. If you attack them, they retreat; if you retreat they attack."

Ahmadinejad’s verbal salvos against the West are part of an effort to criticise his opponents, linking them to the "concessionary" policies of the previous reformist government, led by Mohammad Khatami. According to Ahmadinejad, Khatami "could not show resistance against pressures", whereas the current government succeeded in "deflecting" pressures and “burying the sanctions in the cemetery of history".

However, if Ahmadinejad’s rhetorical attacks are primarily in a domestic arena, they are bolstered by external foes. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s National Security Adviser, Uzi Arad, said last Thursday: “Israel maintains its liberty to operate against Iran.” He added that on past occasions, Israel had not updated the US on military options.

Arad may have been shaky in his historical references, comparing Ahmadinejad to Egypt's President Nasser in 1956 and 1967, but this did not deter the United States from dropping its own hints. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, stated on Friday that President Obama had asked him to update the plans for the use of military force against Iran, prepared during former President George W. Bush’s terms in office.

It is irrelevant whether Gates and Obama are opposing the use of military force against Iran at this point; what matters is what Iranians perceive on the eve of the elections. Indeed, Amadinejad is countering on such perceptions in the next three weeks. That is what does matter in determining the ‘retreat-attack’ game…

The UN Special Envoy to the Middle East: "Let's Wait and See."

Robert Serry, the UN Special Envoy to the Middle East, appeared on BBC's Hard Talk, hosted by Stephen Sackur, last Monday.  Serry's "wait and see" approach, shedding light on the relationship between Israel and the UN since Operation Cast Lead in January, again called the extent of the effectiveness of the UN into question.

Here are some remarkable extracts from the conversation:

The Confession of the Trust Problem between the United Nations and the State of Israel

S.S.: Robert Serry, welcome to Hard Talk. Would you accept that you have a problem? You are the UN’s envoy to the Middle East peace process, yet one party to the Middle East conflict, that is, Israel, does not trust the UN.

R.S.: I took the job; I knew it was not going to be an easy one. What you refer to is something which I think we have to resolve. And I do believe that Israel will look at peacekeeping operations. And the UN peacekeeping operation is one of the most successful.

S.S.: UN plays a role in various ways across the Middle East region. But would you accept that there is a fundamental problem of trust between Israel and the United Nations?

R.S.: Yes, I think we have a problem, and it is there to be resolved.

“Yes” to an Investigation but No Breakthrough:

S.S.: Do you believe that war crimes were committed? And a special panel created by the Human Rights Council must go to Gaza and Israel and do a detailed investigation of allegations these war crimes?

R.S.: Certainly. And the Goldstone mission is preparing to go.

S.S.: The Israelis will not let you into Gaza. What did they say; when you said the panel must be allowed in? What did they say?

R.S.: We have not yet received a final answer on that issue.

A Vague Answer to the Current Situation of Gazans:

S.S.: John Ging who runs the Relief Operation in Gaza Strip. I am quoting his words: “The level of access to humanitarian assistance in Gaza today is wholly and totally inadequate.” If the situation is current and if the Israelis are refusing to lift the blockade, to stop the situation being wholly and totally inadequate, does that constitute a violation of humanitarian law?

R.S.: You can not keep a population hostage, no matter how difficult a security situation Israel claims it finds itself in. We have had a war, and after the war, none of the underlying issues in Gaza have been resolved. The rocket fire, into the southern Israel, which is completely unacceptable, and the Secretary General has always called it for what it is, terror acts. But for the moment, there is a relative calm. Then we have the continued siege. There is enough food and medicine, but we cannot start the process of reconstruction four months after the conflict. Then you have Palestinian reconciliation. You have illicit smuggling of arms, and of course, Gilad Shalit. We had all these issues before, and we still have them. We desperately need a more positive situation for Gaza. The UN has been one of the first to go for that.

A Cold Shower:

S.S.: When I hear that long list, I wonder if you have one of the most frustrating jobs in the world. I can talk about a number of mission you have tried to undertake, and it seems that you have absolutely no leverage, no impact at all.

R.S.: I don’t think so.

S.S.: Can you point to where you have actually changed the situation on the ground in this conflict between Israel and the Palestinians?

R.S.: Come back to Gaza, we are making a difference. We are involved in the difficult situation between the Palestinian factions.

Did Someone Ask about Hamas?

S.S.: But you can not talk to Hamas, can you?
R.S.: I don’t talk to them myself.
S.S.: You do not to talk to Hamas, do you think you should?
R.S.: Let us take a step back.
S.S.: A direct question, should you be able to talking to Hamas, given your role as the UN Special Envoy?
S.R.: If Hamas would take the steps which and I needed to have a successful reconciliation – these are the real issues. If it would be like that, I would be the first to talk to them.
S.S.: Your predecessor has made it quite plain that he believes the UN, the players to the peace process, must engage with and involve Hamas. He said that isolating them has been a disaster.
S.R.: I agree with him there. Having a siege in Gaza leads nowhere. It is a policy which I do not support. We have the Quartet. We have the so called Quartet principles which mean that the Palestinian government needs to renounce violence. It needs to recognize Israel and abide by previous commitments. We are now at a very important moment if we are looking ahead. A renewed, serious attempt, led by the new administration of the United States.
S.S.: Here is what strikes me… The situation has changed. We have Barak Obama in the White House; a man who says he wants to reach out to those enemies who prepared to unclench their fists. We have George Mitchell who was involved in the process of making peace in Northern Ireland when the peacemakers had to talk to the IRA long before they put down their weapons and committed to the lasting peace. We also have the Americans in Iraq who worked with indeed armed men. In this 21st century of peacemaking, can you not accept that you will have to accept Hamas?
R.S.: I would be the first and happy to talk to Hamas if it indeed leads to some positive results.

“Give Time to Netanyahu”:

S.S.: You told there about a two-state solution. Those are words which Benjamin Netanyahu has steadfastly refused to use since he became the Israeli prime minister. Does that worry you?
R.S.: He will talk with President Obama…
S.S.: You have a Prime Minister who finds it very difficult to even to say the words two-state solution, which you say must be the very underpinning of any solution? Is that a problem?
R.S.: It could be a problem.
S.S.: It is a very big problem.
R.S.: We have a new government. The elected government is having its own policy review at the moment. We have to give time to complete that. They will then tell us where they stand.

“Wait & See” Part 1:

S.S.: If the Israelis refuse to cooperate with this UN Commission, what will relations be?
R.S.: Let’s wait and see.

“Wait & See” Part 2:

S.S.: Do you think the government led by Benjamin Netanyahu is going to stop the settlement expansion?
R.S.: Let’s wait and see.
S.S.: All right, let’s wait and see on that.

Sadly we can't embed a video here, but readers in the UK can watch the show on the BBC iPlayer.