From Koinonia House

Political > Current Events > The Middle East In The Crosshairs Part 3

2010 and Beyond: The Middle East in the Crosshairs Part 3 by Steve Elwart, IDB Folio Specialist

It is a darker world today than it was a year ago.

Charlie Allen, Chief Intelligence Office

Department of Homeland Security

This is the conclusion of a series of Mideast updates that began in January. This month we focus on Israel and Syria.

Syria

Henry Kissinger once observed, “Damascus is at one and the same time the fount of modern Arab nationalism and the exhibit of its frustrations.” He also wrote. “Syrian history alternates achievement with catastrophe.”¹ In the Old Testament, Syria (or “Aram”) was the name for the Aramean kingdom centered at Damascus. A country of deep and rich traditions—Greco-Roman, Islamic, and Mediterranean—it had become a cultural and intellectual backwater.

Founded in 1920 under King Faisal of the Hashemite family, Syria has had a long and colorful history. In the last century, a Lebanese state had arisen on their western border, fostered by the French in 1920, with a large Sunni influence in the government, but always in conflict with the Sunni-dominated government of Syria. Syrian nationalists never reconciled themselves to the triumph of Israel in 1948; the late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad called Israel “Southern Syria.”

Regardless of public pronouncements, Syria knows that the establishment of a Jewish state cannot be reversed, and the Six Day War in 1967 showed that Syria was not Israel’s military equal. Syria then faced a challenge: how to separate the “problem of 1967” (the Golan Heights) from the “problem of 1948” (the bigger question of “Palestine”). They solved the dilemma with the U.S.-orchestrated cease fire of October 1973. They have combined belligerent rhetoric with diplomatic action. They have carried on this dichotomy in other ways with Israel. As a State, they have been low key in their dealings with Israel, but are, at the same time, a known sponsor of terrorism.

Iran and Syria routinely provide protection and resources to terrorist organizations. Syria has also continued to support Hezbollah since the group came into existence, as well as HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), among others. All have offices in Damascus and operate within Syria’s borders.

While the Syrian government insists that the Damascus-based groups are confined to political and informational activities, Palestinian groups with leaders in Syria have claimed responsibility for anti-Israeli terrorist attacks.

In the last 18 months, Syria has increased their support of terrorists. Israel has also turned Syria and Iran into strange bedfellows. Iran’s ability to mobilize the Shiite community in Lebanon has provided a critical strategic advantage to Syria in efforts to push Israel out of neighboring Lebanese territory, including during the most recent Israeli-Lebanese war of 2006.

Some intelligence analysts have evidence that terrorist groups inside Syria are actively working to acquire nuclear material to use against Israel, which will elicit a military response.

Syrians privately whisper of the inevitability of peace and normalized relations with Israel. Many hope legal trade avenues will open up, along with temporary work opportunities. But such hopes are overshadowed by Syria’s powerful alliance with Iran, a country firmly opposed to any further Arab-Israeli agreements, particularly involving one of its closest historical allies. The costs of endangering this alliance are currently too great for President Bashar al-Assad to absorb, given his state’s international isolation, so he ignores his citizens’ interest in establishing economic relations with the Jewish state.²

Israel If you want to know where we are in end time prophecy, watch Israel. Ever since the Regathering in the Land, we can see end-time prophecy unfolding. A “Cup of Trembling,” there have been fourteen major conflicts between Israel and its neighbors since the 1948 United Nations partition.³

Israel is in the unenviable position of having to win every war to survive. Their enemies don’t have to win any of them, except the last one. From a nuclear standpoint, Israel is a “one-bomb country.” One nuclear device detonated over Israel would devastate the country. This puts Israel in a very bad position. There is no room for error in their foreign policy. They feel if they make one mistake, it is the end of them as a nation, thus giving new meaning to the slogan “Never Again.”

Jerusalem has also become the “burdensome stone” predicted in Zechariah.⁴ From 1967 to 1989 the UN Security Council passed 131 resolutions directly addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict, all of them against Israel, most vetoed by the United States. In fact, the United States had been Israel’s staunchest partner since May 15, 1948 when President Harry Truman (over the objections of his cabinet and Joint Chiefs of Staff) recognized the State of Israel on May 15, 1948, minutes after Israel declared its independence. Past American presidents, encouraged by active support from civic groups, labor unions, political parties, and members of the American and world Jewish communities, supported the concept, outlined in Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration, of a Jewish homeland.

The political landscape has now changed. The Obama administration has distanced itself from Israel in its effort to establish closer ties with the Muslim world. It has also joined the EU to call for a halt to building settlements in occupied territory and for a divided Jerusalem to serve as the capitals of both Israel and Palestine. These two issues serve as indicators for other important issues.

What if Iran exploits America’s eagerness for diplomacy, and uses delaying tactics to “run out the clock” on its nuclear weapons program? The Israelis do not believe that the current negotiations would elicit real Iranian cooperation and do not trust the Turks to mediate the dispute. The more Iran toys with the Turkish proposal to store its enriched uranium, the more the Israelis can protest to the United States behind the scenes that the negotiations will not lead to constructive results, and more aggressive action is needed.

What if President Obama’s diplomatic initiative fails and Iran calls his bluff about nuclear weapons being “unacceptable”? Seeing the President’s performance on the world stage so far, this is entirely possible. If Obama is faced with a choice between a nuclear Iran and using a military option to neutralize the facilities, will the president choose to strike and alien-ate his political base on the Left as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

The Obama administration’s latest moves, among others, have brought a harsh reality to the Israelis—they are on their own. For this reason, the Israelis have thus been busy running their own diplomatic course apart from the United States and the rest of the P-5+1 group.⁵

During the Bush administration, one scenario was for Israel to launch a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel does not have the sophisticated weaponry to reach the underground facilities with conventional weapons, so it would have to go nuclear. This would be the United States’ worst nightmare. The thinking in Tel Aviv was that the United States would then step in and conduct the strike itself with the more sophisticated, conventional weapons rather than risk a nuclear confrontation in the region. This scenario was still dangerous, especially if the Russians decided to come to Iran’s defense.

Today, though, Israel believes that the U.S. would not intervene but would “dwell carelessly” while Israel carried out a strike on Iran. The same holds true if Israel decided to strike Damascus. After several incidents where state-sponsored acts of terror were traced back to Syria, Damascus was warned that the city would be “leveled” if there was ever a nuclear attack on Israel. As one source in the Israeli Government said, “If this brings about Isaiah 17 [show/hide]Isaiah 17 An Oracle Concerning Damascus [17:1]An oracle concerning Damascus. Behold, Damascus will cease to be a city and will become a heap of ruins. [2]The cities of Aroer are deserted; they will be for flocks, which will lie down, and none will make them afraid. [3]The fortress will disappear from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus; and the remnant of Syria will be like the glory of the children of Israel, declares the LORD of hosts. [4]And in that day the glory of Jacob will be brought low, and the fat of his flesh will grow lean. [5]And it shall be as when the reaper gathers standing grain and his arm harvests the ears, and as when one gleans the ears of grain in the Valley of Rephaim. [6]Gleanings will be left in it, as when an olive tree is beaten-- two or three berries in the top of the highest bough, four or five on the branches of a fruit tree, declares the LORD God of Israel. [7]In that day man will look to his Maker, and his eyes will look on the Holy One of Israel. [8]He will not look to the altars, the work of his hands, and he will not look on what his own fingers have made, either the Asherim or the altars of incense. [9]In that day their strong cities will be like the deserted places of the wooded heights and the hilltops, which they deserted because of the children of Israel, and there will be desolation. [10]For you have forgotten the God of your salvation and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; therefore, though you plant pleasant plants and sow the vine-branch of a stranger, [11]though you make them grow on the day that you plant them, and make them blossom in the morning that you sow, yet the harvest will flee away in a day of grief and incurable pain. [12]Ah, the thunder of many peoples; they thunder like the thundering of the sea! Ah, the roar of nations; they roar like the roaring of mighty waters! [13]The nations roar like the roaring of many waters, but he will rebuke them, and they will flee far away, chased like chaff on the mountains before the wind and whirling dust before the storm. [14]At evening time, behold, terror! Before morning, they are no more! This is the portion of those who loot us, and the lot of those who plunder us.
, so be it.”

The strategic thinking of the U.S. and Israel has been brought into sharp relief under the Obama administration. The U.S. position on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is based on two assumptions: 1) If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, they will act responsibly with them (as the Chinese did) and 2) The U.S. is outside the effective range of Iran’s current ballistic missile arsenal, while Israel is not.

Israel is a completely different level of risk than the United States. To Israel, while a direct nuclear strike by Iran on them is improbable; the result on this “one-bomb country” would be catastrophic. To the United States, the risk of an attack is less likely and the results, while very serious, would be less devastating. Thus, the U.S. is willing to play for time, while the Israelis have no such luxury.

Since the new policy of the Obama administration is negotiation and sanctions rather than military action, the entire onus of a military response seems to be on Israel.

In the past, Israel has shown it will not fail to act when faced with an external threat. The Osirak reactor bombing outside Baghdad in 1981 proves the point. New information is coming out that Iran may act against Israel via proxies, such as remnants of the PLO from South Beirut, Shiite proxy groups such as Hezbollah, or the Marxist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, making it unclear where Israel would retaliate.

Not knowing where Iran was most likely to strike Israel and how Israel would respond is a big concern to the United States. While it is thought that Israel now has enough ordinance to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities if they attack Iran directly, it does not have enough to prevent a retaliatory response by Iran. This response could be the sinking of a transport ship in the Gulf of Hormuz, blocking 27% of the world’s oil from reaching the rest of the globe.6 It could be another, larger Iranian attack on the disputed oil fields in Eastern Iraq, or it could be the seizing of a crew off the coast of Iran.

A response to these kinds of actions would be up to the United States, drawing the nation into another conflict it could ill afford, since a response by the United States would also re-quire a ground component to any operation.

Operation Cobra

Partly to ease Israeli fears of a lack of U.S. support, the United States conducted a joint military exercise with Israel, known as Operation Cobra, the largest bilateral ballistic missile defense operation to date. It was interesting that these exercises were highly publicized, as opposed to other joint operations.

It is supposed that the United States wanted Iran to know precisely what they were doing. If Iran would launch a nu-clear missile against Israel it would probably launch only one; they would not wait to develop more and risk that asset being destroyed in a silo.

If the only missile Iran can launch is shot down by an U.S.-Israeli ballistic missile, that would be a worst case scenario for Iran. The United States wants Iran to know they are ready for them.

So for now, as in so many things in the Mideast arena, the Obama administration is following the Bush administration strategy: Make vague threats, gather allies to their point of view (either through the UN or individually), protect the Mideast oil supplies, and play a waiting game. While the U.S. will play a waiting game, Israel is preparing for an offensive battle.

Over the next year, do not pay as much attention to all the rhetoric coming out of that region as to what these countries are actually doing. This is a classic case of actions speaking louder than words.

* * *

Steve Elwart is a subject matter expert for the United States Departments of Homeland Security and Energy. He is also a Koinonia Institute Issachar Database Folio Specialist.

This article was originally published in the
March 2010 Personal Update NewsJournal.
For a FREE 1-Year Subscription, click here.

---

**NOTES**

---

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; panose-1:2 4 6 4 5 5 5 2 3 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:120%; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; color:black;} p.Hangingindent, li.Hangingindent, div.Hangingindent {mso-style-name:”Hanging indent”; mso-style-next:Normal; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in; line-height:120%; mso-pagination:none; tab-stops:.25in; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; color:black;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; panose-1:2 4 6 4 5 5 5 2 3 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:120%; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; color:black;} p.Hangingindent, li.Hangingindent, div.Hangingindent {mso-style-name:”Hanging indent”; mso-style-next:Normal; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in; line-height:120%; mso-pagination:none; tab-stops:.25in; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; color:black;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> <!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; panose-1:2 4 6 4 5 5 5 2 3 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:120%; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; color:black;} p.Hangingindent, li.Hangingindent, div.Hangingindent {mso-style-name:”Hanging indent”; mso-style-next:Normal; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in; line-height:120%; mso-pagination:none; tab-stops:.25in; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; color:black;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

Sources:

Ajami, F. (2009). The Ways of Syria. Foreign Affairs, 50-54.

Berry, J., & Thomas, E. (2009, January 31). Obama’s Vietnam. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/182650.

Bolton, J. (2009). President Obama’s Foreign Policy: An Assessment. “First Principles on First Fridays” lecture series (pp. 1-3). Washington, DC: Hillsdale College.

Central Intelligence Agency (2009). The World Factbook. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Cooper, H. (2009, November 19). Obama Says He Is Close to Afghan War Decision. Retrieved November 20, 2009, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/world/asia/19prexy.html.

Elwart, S. (2008). Choke Oil. Coeur d’Alene, ID: Koinonia Institute.

Friedman, G. (2009, August 18). Iraq Endgame. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from Stratfor: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090817_iraq_endgame.

Gifford, L. A. (2009). Syria: The Change That Never Came. Current History , 417-423.

Iran Focus (2005, November 17). European Parliament rips Iran leader’s remarks. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from Iran Focus : http://www.iranfocus.com/en/special-wire/european-parliament-rips-iran-leader-s-remarks-04468.html.

Missler, C. (2002). Roots of War. Coeur d’Alene, ID, USA.

Thomas, G. (2009, December 02). Nuke supplies link Pyongyang to Qom. Retrieved December 02, 2009, from G2 Bulletin: http://g2bulletin.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=1594.

Notes:

1. (Ajami, 2009).

2. (Gifford, 2009).

3. 1. 1948 War of Independence —November 1947 - July 1949.

2. The retribution operations—conducted in the 1950s (Military response by Israel for every terror action made by the Fedayeen).

3. The Sinai War—October 1956.

4. Six-Day War—June 1967.

5. War of Attrition—1968-1970 (a limited war fought between the Israeli military and Egypt, the USSR and the PLO to recapture the Sinai from Israel).

6. Yom Kippur War—October 1973.

7. Operation Litani—March 1978 (The 1978 South Lebanon conflict).

8. First Lebanon War—Began June 1982.

9. The fighting in Southern Lebanon—1985 - 2000.

10. The First Intifada—Began in December 1987.

11. The Gulf War (1991)—Israel attacked by Iraqi missiles to provoke a response. 12. The al-Aqsa Intifada—Started in September 2000.

13. Second Lebanon War—Summer 2006.

14. Operation Cast Lead —2008-2009 (IDF strikes in the Gaza Strip in response to rocket attacks).

4. Zechariah 12:3 [show/hide]Zechariah 12:3 [3]On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will gather against it. (ESV)
.

5. The 5 Permanent Members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.

6. (Elwart, 2008).

From Koinonia House

Issachar Report:

The Middle East in the Crosshairs: Part 2

by Steve Elwart, IDB Folio Specialist

It is a darker world today than it was a year ago.

Charlie Allen, Chief Intelligence Officer

Department of Homeland Security

Last month, we covered the overall strategy the United States followed in much of its foreign policy and the origins of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also covered the current situation in Iraq. In this article we will explore the situation in Afghanistan and a major player in the Middle East, Iran.

Afghanistan

Thought to be the origin of the Indo-European-speaking peoples and the birthplace of Zoroastrianism, Afghanistan has had a long and colorful history. While the land has been occupied at various times by the Median and Persian Empires, Alexander the Great, the Seleucids, the IndoGreeks, Turks, and Mongols and more recently, the British, Soviets, and now the United States, Afghanistan has never truly been conquered.

It has been called the “Graveyard of Empires,” because the area is land-locked, mountainous, and littered with easily defendable caves. There is a truism in military warfare that says, “Amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics.” For the United States’ war on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, this conflict quickly became one of logistics.

There are three approaches into Afghanistan to bring in troops, supplies and munitions: Pakistan, Iran, and Russia via Central Asia. The route through Iran is impossible in the cur-rent political climate and the other two are in serious jeopardy. Even now, the northern supply route to Afghanistan through Central Asia is being threatened by Taliban attacks. Until recently, United States forces were supplied through Pakistan. However, due to ground attacks by the Taliban, 70% of the supplies brought into Afghanistan through this route have been destroyed. To execute the war in Afghanistan, the United States must secure these supply routes and placate both Pakistan and Russia at a minimum.

The war is now at a crossroads. General Stanley McChrystal’s proposal for substantial U.S. troop increases in Afghanistan has triggered a major debate about U.S. policy toward the conflict there, both within the Obama administration and without. Gen. McChrystal’s report did recommend an increase in troop levels by 40,000, but there was another facet to the plan that has not been reported in the media.

The McChrystal Plan recommended the troop increase only if there was a change in strategy for the campaign. The in-crease in force levels in Afghanistan is an attempt to change the game in Afghanistan. If there is not a change in strategy, the report continues, the U.S. needs to withdraw for fear that Afghanistan will become another Vietnam.

Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the military adviser at the White House coordinating efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, said on The Charlie Rose Show, “We have never been beaten tactically in a firefight in Afghanistan.” That quote is eerily reminiscent of a conversation between Col. Harry Summers, a military historian, and a officer in the North Vietnamese Army. As Summers recalled it, he said, “You never defeated us in the field.” To which the NVA officer replied: “That may be true. It is also irrelevant.”¹

On December 1st, President Obama laid out his strategy for Afghanistan in a speech to the cadets at the West Point Military Academy. The main points are to run Al-Qaeda out of the country, prepare the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security, and to create the conditions for a U.S. withdrawal from the country.

His plan comes in three parts:

1. 30,000 more U.S. soldiers will be deployed to Afghanistan.

2. Obama is requesting their NATO allies to send the remaining 10,000 troops required.

3. All troops will start to withdraw from the country in July 2011.

While the plan sounds simple, there are several problems to be overcome. First, the U.S. commitment is 25 percent lower than the field commander’s minimum request. The extra troops President Obama is hoping for will come from NATO countries that have turned down previous requests for assistance in Afghanistan. The troops that have been sent in the past have been slow in coming with conditions attached. (Currently, NATO has agreed to send 7,000 noncombatant troops.)

Second, setting a withdrawal date sends the wrong signal to the Taliban, letting them know how long they have to wait be-fore the United States will be leaving. This will also further weaken the Karzai government in Kabul.

The real heart of the War on Terror in 2010 will not be in Afghanistan; it will be in Pakistan, which shares a border with its neighbor to the north.

When the United States first entered Afghanistan, it was extremely successful. The U.S. came in with small Special Forces units and worked with the local chieftains in moving Al-Qaeda out of their strongholds in Afghanistan. The problem was that the terrorist bases were moved into the North-West Frontier Province and Federally Administered Tribal Areas in northern Pakistan.

This action was taken without any forewarning to Pakistan, a fact they deeply resent. The U.S. has since taken pains in working with Pakistan, by at least notifying the government in advance of any major action, but in many ways it is too late. Al-Qaeda and their Taliban sponsors have gained a foothold in Pakistan and it will be difficult to dislodge them. The major concern with an Al-Qaeda presence in Pakistan is the roughly 30 nuclear weapons the country is thought to have. If these weapons fall into terrorist hands, the results can be catastrophic. To win in Afghanistan, we also need to win in Pakistan. Even if the United State achieves all of its goals in Afghanistan, the threat from Al-Qaeda will not completely disappear. As one senior intelligence officer said in a confidential briefing, “This is not a matter of if the United States is attacked again; it is a matter of when.” The Fort Hood Massacre of November 6th, 2009, and the attempted airline bombing on Christmas 2009 may only be the start of a new round of terrorist acts in-side the United States.

Iran

Iran is an anomaly in the area. Many people call them Ar-abs, but they are actually Persian. Iran can claim both Cyrus the Great and Daniel in their history. It was only 1,000 years after these men lived that Iran was conquered by Arab armies and became a regional center for Islam.

There is also a rich Jewish history coming out of Iran. The Books of Isaiah, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and Esther contain references to the life in Iran (then Persia). Jews have lived in Iran for over 2,700 years—since the capture of the Jewish Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.

From the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 until the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Israel viewed Iran as a natural ally as another non-Arab power in the Arab world. While the two countries did not have diplomatic relations, Israel had a permanent delegation in Tehran which served as an unofficial embassy. Iran even came to Israel’s aid after the Six Day War, supplying Israel with oil and utilizing Israeli oil pipelines to get its oil to market. Up until 1979 the two countries maintained trade relations and even joint military operations. All that changed with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Since the Ayatollah came to power, Iran is now the most effective counterbalance to U.S. intentions in the region. It is interesting to note that in the beginning of the Iraq War, the U.S. had the support of the Iranian government (even allowing our planes to land in Iran if they had mechanical trouble). This was because Iran was led to believe that the U.S. would support a Shiite-led government in Iraq, becoming an Iranian puppet state, in effect.

The Iranian government’s attitude changed once they saw the United States’ overtures to the majority Sunni faction in Iraq. It is interesting to note that Iran didn’t start talking about its nuclear program until they started to feel like the U.S. was dealing them out of the game. The whole discussion about nuclear weapons is not about nuclear weapons, it is about Iraq.

Iran would love to see the U.S. lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reticence of the Obama Administration and the near-revolt of the Left in Congress are only heartening the Iranians. There is a great fear in Iran, though. The younger members of the Iranian government want to continue to goad the new United States president and publicly humiliate him. The older members in the government remember a time when they publicly humiliated a president (Carter) and drove him from office. They then had to deal with Ronald Reagan.

They fear that if history repeats itself, they could end up having to deal with a very conservative American President in 2012. The older members of the government are lobbying for Iran to cut a deal with this president while they can. President Obama is looking for a deal because he would love to be able to bring both these conflicts to an end and let that be part of his legacy.

Complicating the situation is Iran’s nuclear program. No country in the P 5+1 group² or the Sunni-dominated countries wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, but there is no consensus on how to deal with them. So far, the only action they have taken was to issue a joint statement expressing “disappointment” in Iran’s lack of response to a proposal to ship roughly 75 percent of Iran’s low-enriched uranium (LEU) abroad for further processing.

Russia, France, and Turkey all have said they would take the material and enrich it for them, but Iran is not excited about giving any of those countries control of its LEU. Not only do they not want to lose control of the material, but they view these countries as competitors for influence in the region.

Iran’s response to any outside pressure is to start a program of bluster and delay. Iran’s latest delaying tactic is to insist that the United States unfreeze Iranian assets before any negotiations can move forward.

In recent weeks Iran has also instigated a border crossing into a disputed section of their border with Iraq, seizing an oil well; something that has happened before. This latest incident has been telling in that the United States has stated that it will not get involved in this dispute, a move which will only embolden the radicals in the Iranian government. Seeing this as a weakness in the new American administration, Iran is increasing the provocation, threatening to build 10 new nu-clear facilities in Iran rather than dismantling the ones they currently have.

This is viewed by many intelligence agencies as mostly bluster. Experts say Iran’s plans to build 10 new nuclear plants is not within its capabilities for years, but Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said they would build another 10 uranium enrichment plants the size of the Natanz facility already in operation. He says construction of two of the plants will start in a matter of months.

Some experts have asserted that Iran simply does not have the industrial capabilities to produce the 500,000 centrifuges required for the country’s stated goal of generating 20,000 megawatts of electricity. Currently Iran has installed only 8,000 centrifuges, far from the 500,000 required for the country’s new program. Of those 8,000, only half are currently producing reactor-grade uranium.

Iran experts report that the proposed program would likely not be in place before 2030. Iran, however, may have found a way to get the technology they need long before 2030. Intelligence reports out of London state that North Korea has sup-plied Iran with nuclear components to keep an enriched uranium operation near the holy city of Qom “on target to go on line.”³

Iran has further raised the ante by test-firing a new two-stage Sajjil-2 missile. This missile is capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe—a provocation designed to prevent any military strike against it. Reports are also coming in that Russia is helping Iran with its weapons technology, while smugglers from Taipei are bringing in weapons-grade material from North Korea. All that is lacking is a nuclear trigger.

While most countries discount many of these moves as mere saber rattling, Israel does not have that luxury. Israel believes that Iran’s nuclear program has matured to a point that it will affect the survival of the Jewish state. Also, an escalation of tensions between Iran and Israel could quickly spiral into major crisis at the world’s energy nexus, the Persian Gulf. Yet, with all this at stake, recent moves by the Obama Administration have awakened fears in Tel Aviv that if the threat of nu-clear annihilation is used on Israel, the United States may not come to the aid of the Israelis.

This is problematic since only the United States has the re-sources to simultaneously strike Iran’s nuclear facilities and engage Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. This is a fight the United States does not want to fight today. It would much rather hope that the internal discontent in Iran will result in a regime change without any outside intervention.

The year 2010 may see Iran preparing for war, Israel looking to preempt it, the United States trying to avoid it, and the Russians jockeying for position to make sure it is the true beneficiary of a conflict. These facts are looming large in the war rooms of Israel.

Next month will be the conclusion of this series, focusing on Israel and Syria.

* * *

Steve Elwart is a subject matter expert for the United States Departments of Homeland Security and Energy. He is also a Koinonia Institute Issachar Database Folio Specialist.

This article was originally published in the
February 2010 Personal Update NewsJournal.
For a FREE 1-Year Subscription, click here.

---

**NOTES**

---

Notes:

1 Barry, John, and Thomas, Evan, “Obama’s Vietnam,” NEWSWEEK, Feb. 9, 2009.

2. P 5+1 is a reference to the permanent five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.

3. Farah, Joseph, G2 Bulletin, WorldNetDaily, Dec. 2, 2009.

From Koinonia House

2010 and Beyond:

The Middle East in the Crosshairs

by Steve Elwart, IDB Folio Specialist

It is a darker world today than it was a year ago.

Charlie Allen, Chief Intelligence Officer

Department of Homeland Security

Two events in the United States overshadowed all others in 2008 and still loom large as we enter 2010. One was the financial crisis that, spreading from America’s subprime mortgage mess, has stricken the global economy. The other was the election of Barack Obama to the United States presidency. Both events highlight the emergence of a new relationship between America and the world; both color every major event in geopolitics today.

Central and South Asia win our attention by threatening to drag us all into chaos. Russia and China grab our notice by playing the great power game. Petroleum-exporting states like Venezuela hold oil consumers hostage, while financial fears consume the West. What does the Middle East have to do to make us pay attention? With the new administration in control in the United States, backed by same-party control of both houses of Congress, foreign affairs have taken a back seat to domestic affairs. The push in the U.S. to pull the economy out of recession, health care “reform,” and the now near-dead cap and trade legislation has reduced the Middle East to a footnote in the Obama administration’s policy agenda.

But before we go any further, some background is needed on one of the underlying theories that drove U.S. and Israeli foreign policies, the Nash Equilibrium.

John Forbes Nash, Jr. (the main character in the movie, A Beautiful Mind) is an American mathematician who worked primarily in game theory. In 1994, his life work on game theory won him the Nobel Prize in Economics. The precept that won him the prize was the Nash Equilibrium. The Nash Equilibrium is a kind of game involving two or more players, where no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy.

Simply put, John Nash quantified the concept of “reciprocal altruism.” This is the concept of doing something good for an-other person without regard for repayment. The other, darker side of this theory is to attack anyone who attacks you, but harder.

This “tit-for-tat” strategy had gained favor in the Bush ad-ministration even before the 2001 World Trade Center attacks. When the attacks did come, the thinking was, “You came here and attacked our home? We will come to your house and kill you.” This precipitated the attack on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was only part of the equation. The Al-Qaeda group in Saudi Arabia was still a force to be reckoned with, but they had the protection of elements of the Saudi government and the Royal Family, who for the most part are one and the same. The United States government then was in a quandary. They didn’t want to invade Saudi Arabia, the leading exporter of oil to the United States, but they had to send a message. The invasion of Iraq at the time seemed to fit the bill. The Iraqi government was headed by a brutal dictator, was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction, and did not have many friends in the Muslim or world community. The United States needed to send a message to Saudi Arabia that we would invade a Muslim country and clean out Al-Qaeda if they would not do it themselves: Iraq was an object lesson for the Saudis.

There was only one problem in the United States’ thinking. The Nash Equilibrium only works if both parties have some-thing equal to lose: “How do you win in a game of Chicken when your opponent thinks he will go to heaven if he loses?” The U.S. invasion of Iraq and subsequent invasion of Afghanistan produced many of the same results as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It galvanized Muslim resistance against the foreign infidels. Terrorists from around the world poured in to fight the Allied troops. They believed that they were in Jihad and if they died, they would immediately enter paradise.

For all the hand-wringing over the U.S.-led invasions, most countries were either ambivalent about the engagement or actually glad it came. Many European countries—especially the French, Germans, and Russians—saw it as a business opportunity. The Sunni-dominated Saudi government saw it as Iraq being removed as a threat to their oil supplies, as did the Shiite-dominated Iranian government.

At first, the U.S. had the enthusiastic support of the Iranian government (even allowing our planes to land in Iran if they had mechanical trouble). This was because the Iranians were led to believe that the U.S. would support a Shiite-led government in Iraq, an Iranian puppet state, in effect. The Iranian government’s attitude changed once they saw the United States overtures to the Sunni faction in Iraq. It is interesting to note that Iran didn’t start talking about nuclear weapons until they began to feel like the U.S. was dealing them out of the game. In the beginning, the whole discussion was not about nuclear weapons, it was about Iraq.

The outcome of this “tit-for-tat” game is that now there are two countries in a state of flux. Iraq is approaching a semblance of order, but Afghanistan is hurtling headlong down the road toward an even more entrenched Taliban-led regime. Since the United States introduced a major shift in the balance of power in the region, it is up to them to bring closure to both these countries. As General Colin Powell once said, “You break it, you own it.”²

Iraq

The history of Iraq goes back to Genesis 11 [show/hide]Genesis 11 The Tower of Babel [11:1]Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. [2]And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. [3]And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. [4]Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth." [5]And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. [6]And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. [7]Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech." [8]So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. [9]Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth. And from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all the earth. Shem's Descendants [10]These are the generations of Shem. When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood. [11]And Shem lived after he fathered Arpachshad 500 years and had other sons and daughters. [12]When Arpachshad had lived 35 years, he fathered Shelah. [13]And Arpachshad lived after he fathered Shelah 403 years and had other sons and daughters. [14]When Shelah had lived 30 years, he fathered Eber. [15]And Shelah lived after he fathered Eber 403 years and had other sons and daughters. [16]When Eber had lived 34 years, he fathered Peleg. [17]And Eber lived after he fathered Peleg 430 years and had other sons and daughters. [18]When Peleg had lived 30 years, he fathered Reu. [19]And Peleg lived after he fathered Reu 209 years and had other sons and daughters. [20]When Reu had lived 32 years, he fathered Serug. [21]And Reu lived after he fathered Serug 207 years and had other sons and daughters. [22]When Serug had lived 30 years, he fathered Nahor. [23]And Serug lived after he fathered Nahor 200 years and had other sons and daughters. [24]When Nahor had lived 29 years, he fathered Terah. [25]And Nahor lived after he fathered Terah 119 years and had other sons and daughters. [26]When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Terah's Descendants [27]Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot. [28]Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his kindred, in Ur of the Chaldeans. [29]And Abram and Nahor took wives. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah. [30]Now Sarai was barren; she had no child. [31]Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there. [32]The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran. (ESV)
and Nimrod, the first world dictator. While today the capital is in Baghdad, Babylon is the center of history of that country. It is interesting that in these times the country that incorporates the Plain of Shinar has, once again, taken center stage.

Stretching back to 3000 B.C. Iraq, like its neighbors, thinks in terms of decades and centuries rather than months and years. A story is told around Iraq about two men that used to meet every morning for coffee. One day the first man disappeared for a month and then came back to their morning ritual. When asked where he had gone, the man replied, “You remember that man who wronged me 10 years ago? Well, I went to his village and killed him.” To which the second man replied, “Why the hurry?”

This is the mind-set of the Iraqi people. The insurgents know that Westerners are impatient, so they are willing to use time to their advantage. The insurgents think that all they have to do is wait and the foreigners will leave.

Though the United States’ commitment to Iraq is far from over, it has reached a crossroads. While the U.S. was the major contributor of forces to the war effort, about 40 countries sent troops to fight in what was called “Multinational Force-Iraq.” As of this summer, however, only one foreign country’s forces remain in country—the United States. A name change in January 2010 will reflect the new reality, when the term “Multinational Force-Iraq” will be changed to “United States Forces-Iraq.” If there is an endgame in Iraq, we are now in it. Again, much of this is being forced by American impatience.

Barack Obama the Candidate was a far different person than Barack Obama the President. President Obama has found that extricating the armed forces from Iraq is not as easy as it sounded in November 2008. He inherited a strategic plan from President George W. Bush that called for coalition forces to help create an Iraqi national military and security force that would be able to keep the central government’s authority and the country’s territorial cohesion and integrity. The strategy had, as a central premise, the belief that the Shiite, Sunni and Kurd factions in the country could cobble together a government in which all factions would participate and their interests were protected. While this government was forming, the United States would reduce its presence in the country un-til the summer of 2010, when the last of the U.S. military would leave.

While the Obama administration continues to blame the previous administration for the current state of foreign policy, President Obama continues to faithfully follow the Bush Plan. A defining moment is fast approaching. While the Iraqi government is far from a first-tier fighting force, they are continuing to put their mark on the country. All the while, forces in-side and outside the country are reexamining their power-sharing arrangements and some are trying to disrupt the en-tire process. The two major players in this disruption are the Kurds and the Shiites. The major issue is oil.

Iraq is a country of three distinct groups: the Kurds in the north, the Shiites in the central part of the country, and the Sunnis to the south. The Kurds have oil fields (and oil revenue) on their land, the Sunnis have oil on their land, and the Shiites have a lot of sand. The Sunnis (and the U.S. and Saudi Arabia) do not want the Shiites to control the government (and all the oil revenue). The Shiites (with 60% of the population) don’t want the minority Sunni (30%) to cut them out of power and oil. The Kurds (10%) don’t want to be governed by either group; they want their own country. (The Turks and the Iranians do not want autonomy for the Kurds in Iraq because it may give the Kurdish populations in their countries ideas.) The Russians desperately want the United States to fail be-cause they truly fear U.S. dominance in the region. All of this is centering on Kirkuk, 150 miles north of Baghdad.

Kirkuk is the gateway into Iraqi Kurdistan. If the Sunnis control Kirkuk, they can project their power into Kurdistan. If the Kurds control it, it shuts down the Sunni threat and also cuts Sunni access to oil revenues in the region. If the Sunnis are shut out of the region, it can lead to being shut out of pow-er by the Kurds and Shia.

To the north and west of Iraq is Turkey. Turkey is a volatile force in the Iraq equation. Iraqi Kurdistan is only part of the Kurdish homeland—Kurds also live in parts of Turkey (18% of the nation’s population), Syria (10%), and Iran (7%). It is the dream of the Kurds in these four countries to have a single homeland carved out of these four regions. If the Kurds in Iraq become too strong, Turkey may see this as a threat to their national sovereignty and may opt for a military response.

This places the United States in a precarious position. In the last days of the Hussein regime in Iraq, the United States sup-ported a Kurdish insurgency in their area of the country. The Kurds allied with the United States, but also carried deep suspicions dating back to the previous Bush administration.

During the First Gulf War, the administration of George H. W. Bush also worked with the Kurds to form a fifth column movement in Iraq. When the war was over, the United States left the Kurds to their own devices and they were slaughtered. Kurdish memories are long and they are afraid that George Bush the son would do the same thing that George Bush the father did.

Today’s situation is further complicated by private investment by U.S. companies in Iraqi oil interests. A major shift in the political structure in Iraq could jeopardize those interests. Iraq is one insurrection away from becoming another Afghanistan.

The third leg of the power triangle is the Shia. Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is of the same religious line as those in the Government of Iran, but he is not their puppet. Iraq has a long tradition of independence and do not march lockstep with anyone. The Iranian government is not happy with this arrangement and would like to see a regime change with a person more amenable to the interests of Tehran. To prevent this, the United States plans on leaving in country a substantial force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops in Advice and Assist Brigades (AAB), with no combat role, to enforce the agreements in place. These troops will be withdrawn gradually until December 31, 2011 when the last of the U.S. troops would leave Iraq per the agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government in 2008. It is hoped this plan will prevent Iraq’s neighboring countries, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria—and ultimately Russia—from filling the void left by the United States. All of these countries, including Saudi Arabia, are hostile to the United States.

Not only is keeping the troops in Iraq not an option, given our other commitments, but the uncertainty of Iran is problematic. With this option, the troops are as much a hostage to Iran as they are a guarantor. Previous diplomatic moves by the Obama Administration leave in serious question a forceful response to any Iranian move against these troops. Images of hostages being held by Iran for 444 days could be repeated, but on a much larger scale.

If Iran could be eliminated from the equation completely, the entire region becomes more secure. Short of a major move against Iran—by Israel or the United States—Iran will definitely have a part of the long-term peace process. Thus, the “nuclear issue” needs to be resolved.

In Part 2 of this series we will discuss the status of Afghanistan and Iran.

* * *

This article was originally published in the
January 2010 Personal Update NewsJournal.

From Koinonia House

Political > Current Events > The Significance Of Your Vote

Our Election Franchise: The Significance of Your Vote This article was originally published in the October 2008 Personal Update NewsJournal. by Chuck Missler

Most of us are alarmed at the rapid decline of our once-great country. Our elected officials pass laws they haven’t studied, exempt themselves from the burdens they impose on others, and become the pawns of the power brokers rather than faith-fully representing their own constituents. All this at a time when our own economy is irresponsibly ignored.

How far do they have to go before we decide to do something about it?

Some Basic Insights

We need to understand three basic dynamics:

1. Governments grow in response to crises. That’s why gov-ernments often favor wars and other national emergencies. They afford the opportunity to mobilize the collective in-ternal resources against an external enemy. Governments have often created external crises to divert domestic pres-sures.

2. The great discovery in this country is that social “crises” can serve the same purpose. The great social ills—poverty, crime, disadvantaged minorities—can be used to the same ends. Bureaucracies can be created, budgets expanded, and accountability diffused. But there’s an even more insidious dynamic:

3. Immorality invariably leads to social crises. Promiscuity, sexual aberrations, and other forms of immoral behavior create social, medical, and economic crises, broadening the apparent need for more government intervention.

Is it any wonder, then, why governments have an incentive to promote immorality? Is it a surprise to discover the gov-ernment intruding into our homes, families, schools and churches, and in doing so, destroying the moral fabric of our society, the authority of our family, the quality of our educa-tion, and the sanctity of our beliefs?

They have a compelling incentive to do so. The destruction of our society creates the very problems that lead to more bu-reaucracies, budgets, career advancement, and the grasp for power—that ultimate aphrodisiac.

Our Opportunity

We live in a representative democracy, a country God has uniquely blessed. I believe He will hold us accountable for the freedoms, the liberties, and the opportunities He has provided us.

We have an opportunity to exercise one of our most impor-tant stewardships this November. In a representative democ-racy, we, the people, have the right to express our views.

Homework

Spiritual warfare involves preparation. In Ephesians Chap-ter 6, Paul urges us to “put on the whole armor of God.” One or two pieces won’t do, and we can’t wait until we are in the battle. We must put it on before the battle is engaged. In this case, we need to do our homework before we go to the polls.

Make it a matter of personal diligence to investigate your candidates:

1) Does your candidate believe in the God of the Bible?

2) How has your candidate dealt with government intrusion into our lives? Does he or she favor federal solutions to so-cial “crises”?

3) Has he or she demonstrated a commitment to preserving our Constitutional protections?

4) Where does he or she stand relative to homosexuality? Abortion? Health rationing? Does he or she really reflect your values and priorities?

The Zero-Base Concept

There is a concept in many businesses called “Zero-Base Budgeting.” This involves the annual reexamination of every element of the enterprise, with a healthy distrust of the status quo. Every expenditure must “fight for its life” during this type of review, with no weight given without previously demon-strated contributions consistent with the current objectives and challenges.

Some are advocating a similar “audit” of our elected repre-sentatives. The basic philosophy is to “re-elect Nobody” except as they have clearly and actively demonstrated a commitment to our primary priorities.

Some feel it is better to gamble on an unknown challenger than to continue with an incumbent who has not distinguished himself (or herself) on behalf of your cherished values. An in-teresting approach.

Your Mandate

Treat your vote as a franchise given by God. Not many countries enjoy this opportunity. You have no right to bemoan the loss of that which you did not seek to protect.

Finally, I believe our solution ultimately lies in the prayer closet rather than in the ballot box. I believe God can restore this beachhead for the Gospel to a hurting world.

Whether it endures is a matter of your diligence and mine.

Without Him we can’t. Without us, He won’t. Let’s pray.

* * *

From Koinonia House

Political > Current Events > Communism In China

China Update, Part 3: Communism in China Shirk, Susan L., China, Fragile Superpower, Oxford University Press, NY, 2007. by Mary Miller, Koinonia Institute

We conclude our three-part China series this month with an exploration of the affects of Communism and the struggles facing the current regime.

The father of Communism in China, Mao Zedong, was born on December 26, 1893. He was raised in a small community called Shaoshan (SE China). Mao’s father was identified as a harsh man who constantly harassed the young Mao and the rest of his family. As soon as he was able, Mao left home and joined the Nationalist army, when in 1911 the Revolution against the last Chinese emperor began.

Mao was introduced to the philosophy of Marxism in a training college located in Changsha and came to command in 1935 as chairman of the Party’s Politburo. He led the communists after the army successfully finished the Revolution by defeat-ing the Nationalists. As a result, in 1949, the leader of the Nationalist Party, Chiang Kaishek fled to Taiwan with other members of the Nationalist Party and formed the Republic of China.

After years of civil wars, once Mao was in control, the Chinese people loved him and gave him ample support in return for the promise of improved lives for the peasants. It all went wrong very quickly when Mao told the country they could ex-press their citizens’ feelings, in which little objection was expected, but the opposite happened.

Mao turned into a powerful dictator, ordering anybody to be killed or beaten if even a bad word was mentioned. Mao’s biggest opposition came from a group called Rightists. Accusations against the party were not tolerated and death devastated China because of slaughtering and starvation. It was usual for Red Guards (a force equivalent to an army with the color red symbolizing communism) to demolish anything that was old or having to do with the past. Homes were destroyed and belongings, both meager and extravagant, were taken. All religion and religious materials were forbidden under the new regime. Chinese citizens were required to have a small book, which included the sayings and quotes from Mao, which was also to be memorized. All of these rules were stressed to the Chinese over and over throughout Mao’s reign.

Horrific times defined a significant part of China’s continually changing history. In 1958, the Great Leap Forward was activated. Predictions included that during the next few years the Chinese would make economic gains on western nations. From the years 1966-1976, the Cultural Revolution played a major role in the story of China. Schools and universities were closed for a long time, western clothing was forbidden, and young protesters were pursued by the Red Guards. The Cultural Revolution left millions of Chinese dead.

In 1978, Deng Xiaoping picked up where Mao had stopped, and eventually developed a better China, but was not viewed as much better than the “evil” Mao had been. It was under his watch that China actually started to allow foreigners and im-migrants to travel and explore China’s magnificent improvements and the economy gradually increased. Countrymen and workers’ salaries doubled and for the first time, China was able to compete against western countries. However, the event that declared him the “devil himself” was the Tiananmen Square massacre, where thousands of Chinese marched peace-fully on the street, and hundreds were killed.

Today, under the leadership of President Hu Jintao, we view China and no longer see the bleak People’s Republic of Mao Zedong. We may even question our Cold War fears. Today’s China looks more capitalist, more diverse, more colorful, and more globalized. Hu’s presidency represents China’s transition from the established communist “bureaucracy” to a pragmatic “technocracy” in which science and technical skills are valued for leadership.

However, political leadership is still a Leninist-style regime, run by a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) governed, in hierarchical ascending circles, by a Central Committee, a Politburo, and a Standing Committee of the Politburo. The Standing Committee and the Politburo are the two most powerful governing bodies and determine the outcome of all major issues affecting Chinese affairs.

The National People’s Congress (NPC) is the central parliament which meets for two to three weeks once per year. Most of the representatives in the NPC are active Communist Party (CCP) members. Representatives are elected every five years by local congresses throughout China’s 22 provinces and five autonomous regions. The primary purpose of the NPC is to dis-cuss and approve plans related to the economy and warfare. Members of the CCP are active at every level of society—more so in the municipalities and less so in the rural farming districts. The CCP has to approve all election candidates. How-ever, most posts are “appointed” rather than “elected.”

Still, Hu is promoting his political philosophy to establish a “Harmonious Society” domestically and “Peaceful Development” internationally. As peaceful as his plans sound, many are still pondering the mixed signals coming from China. China’s leaders face a disturbing paradox—as the country be-comes more developed and prosperous, the more insecure and threatened the government feels.

Beginning in 1989, China watched as communist governments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe collapsed al-most overnight. A unacceptable scenario for China’s leaders is a national protest movement of discontented groups—unemployed workers, hard-pressed farmers, students, and organized religious groups—united against the regime in fervor for nationalism.

The government response to this perceived threat is the call to “social stability,” in which Communist Party leaders on all levels publicly discuss the need for the Party to maintain order and prosperity. The message is to reinforce the concept that a country the size of China would soon descend into civil war and chaos without it.

It seems some of Chinese Communist Party insecurity is legitimate. After twenty-five years of market reforms, the Party cannot keep track of the population, much less control it. Over one hundred million farmers have moved to cities. Approximately three-quarters of the workforce are employed outside state sanctioned supervision. Ninety percent of those with college degrees access information on the Internet. As CCP leaders try to censor the Internet and media, President Clinton’s remark about China is often retold, “A tight grip is actually a sign of a weak hand.”

A growing disparity is occurring between the lifestyles of the rich and the struggles of the poor who cannot afford school fees and medical expenses. People are beginning to talk about official corruption as a means of affluence instead of hard work and ingenuity.

These leadership insecurities in Beijing are causing a growing sense of China’s fragility. As we watch China’s growing economic and military strength, it is its weakness that causes the most alarm. Susan Shirk describes what could be our worst-case scenario as we await China’s next move:

The weak legitimacy of the Communist Party and its leaders’ sense of vulnerability could cause China to behave rashly in a crisis involving Japan or Taiwan, and bring it into military conflict with the United States. If economic growth slows and problems multiply, there is a possibility that China’s leaders could be tempted to “wag the dog”—mobilize domestic support by creating an international crisis.

The Chinese leaders have been working for years to reclaim centralized control over the economy to defer an economic crisis, or at least control the consequences. This may be the be-ginning of a new cycle for China in which the confluence of the openness of the Olympics and the crisis of commodities at this critical moment of re-centralization may well be more than the government can manage. If October passes and the new security, social and economic regulations put in place in the past few months don’t revert to their pre-Olympic status, Beijing may see a crisis coming. If that is the case, so may we.

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; panose-1:2 4 6 4 5 5 5 2 3 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:120%; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; color:black;} p.Hangingindent, li.Hangingindent, div.Hangingindent {mso-style-name:”Hanging indent”; mso-style-next:Normal; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.25in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in; line-height:120%; mso-pagination:none; tab-stops:.25in; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Century Schoolbook”; color:black;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

Mann, James, The China Fantasy, Why Capitalism Will Not Bring Democracy to China, Penguin Books, 2007.

Menges, Constantine C., China, The Gathering Threat, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN, 2005.

From Koinonia House

Political > Current Events > Economics In China

China Update, Part 2: Economics in China Shirk, Susan L. China, Fragile Superpower. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007 by Mary Miller, Koinonia Institute

We are in the middle of a series covering China in depth—we will not bring you the latest “flash in the pan” news about China but rather reveal the undercurrents that have dictated the path of China’s meteoric rise. With that in mind, we continue with part two of our series in which we will explore how capitalism has changed China and what its future holds.

China’s door to the West was opened with a handshake be-tween President Richard Nixon and Chou enLai at the Peking airport in Beijing on February 21, 1972. In the two years fol-lowing the death of Chairman Mao Zedong on September 9, 1976, Chinese leaders began to openly acknowledge that the years of personal regimentation, ideological campaigns, forced labor and torture, and mass starvation had done little to enhance economic progress.

Although Chairman Hua Guofeng was named Mao’s successor, during a period of transition from 1976 to 1978, Deng Xiaoping and his group were able to put forth their program of “Four Modernizations” in agriculture, industry, technology, and the military.

These Four Modernizations were written into the Party constitution in August 1977 and were made part of the state constitution of the National People’s Congress in March 1978. Deng said that China would have “economics in command” in-stead of Mao’s “politics in command.” To implement the Four Modernizations, the Party would subscribe to the credo “practice is the sole criterion of truth” and to “seek the truth from facts.”

This represented the major shift from Mao’s political plat-form to the economic pragmatism Deng had previously sought in the early 1960s. By the December 1978 Party conference, Deng was ratified as the principal Communist leader of China.

Deng often assured the Party that the open door to foreign capitalism would not erode the Communist regime because the state would continue to own most of the means of production and distribution.

Ventures funded with foreign capital would continue to be at least 50 percent Chinese owned. To avoid conflict, the new model was never referred to as “capitalism.” Euphemisms like “market socialism” and Deng’s famous phrase, “socialism with Chinese characteristics” were used instead.

Deng understood well that different regions would develop at different rates. His plan was to have the successful regions serve as examples for the others. The East Asian “Tigers” (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore) served as international examples to develop an export-led economy.

The United States was known as a major market for export and capital investment for these East Asian countries. By 1978, both China and the United States were ready to take steps forward in the normalization of relations that began in 1972 and further open the door.

A severe drought in China in 1978 added another dimension to the modernization process. China’s authorities were forced to loosen the tight government controls. The farmers flourished with their newly granted rights to keep and consume or sell most of their produce. This was called the “responsibility system.” Additional deregulation followed.

By 1984, nearly all farming households were independent producers. By 1987, farmers spent an average of 60 days on crops versus the 250-300 days required previously, and the production of crops increased 50 percent. By 1999, China was moving to agricultural self-sufficiency.

In the years following, China continued its “march to market.” With the full support of then-President Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. Chinese central bankers now play important roles in the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland and in the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Alan Greenspan once noted that China’s central bankers, “just a few years removed from isolated central planning, have become major players in operating the global financial system.”

China has become a manufacturing workshop. Chinese factories turn out two-thirds of the world’s photocopiers, micro-waves, DVD players, and shoes. Americans purchase 40 per-cent of their consumer goods from Chinese facilities.

China has overtaken the United States in the export of in-formation and communication technology products like cell phones, laptop computers, and digital cameras. Because of China’s growing technological talent, every international high-tech communication company has established an R & D site there. China is definitely reclaiming its heritage of technological inventiveness.

Following its entrance in the WTO, China offered free trade agreements to its neighbors in East and Southeast Asia, creating an economically interdependent Asian region. China is now the number one trading partner of South Korea, Vietnam, and Japan.

In recent years, China also expanded its global reach in search of supplies of oil, natural gas, iron ore, copper and other natural resources to supply its meteoric economic growth. Additionally, China is looking to expand its export market from the United States, Europe and Japan to countries in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. These relationships include: 1) building factories close to raw materials; 2) friendship agreements, foreign aid, and infrastructure construction; and 3) the sale of military equipment. As an example, China’s foreign investment in Africa has grown from $1.5 million in 1991 to $1.2 billion in 2005.

This outreach of unconditional aid and favors is hindering the efforts of Western countries to link financial incentives to improvements in human rights and environmental protection. Officials from “undemocratic” governments prefer China’s uncritical friendship to Western intimidation.

By the time China came into the international energy market, most of the oil and gas assets in stable countries were already owned by Western oil companies. China adopted a pol-icy of “energy security,” in which it takes control over its oil and gas supplies by buying up equity stakes or long-term supply contracts in producing countries. These are usually the countries where U.S. sanctions forbid American companies from doing business.

Rising oil prices and the high demand for raw materials adversely impact manufacturing countries. China’s priority is to look for partners to ensure its economic stability regardless of world opinion.

As China continues its economic growth through its version of capitalism, it faces serious challenges, including:

1) The broadening gap developing between the lavish life-styles of the urban rich and the struggles of poor farmers and urban migrants; 2) the increase in the number of educated young adults versus the number of illiterate farmers still residing in rural areas; and, 3) the corruption of officials in all areas of local, regional, and central government positions and the rules of law. All of these conditions are adding tensions to local pockets of civil unrest.

As time passes, the government currently under President Hu Jintao is finding it more difficult to maintain centralized control over the economy. He has repeatedly called for a shift from the current focus on raw economic growth to the creation of a “harmonious society.” His plan is actually a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.

In the years since 1972, Western leaders anxious to be a part of China’s economic rise have put forth the philosophy that “China’s economic development will lead inexorably to an opening of China’s political system.” A 2007 report by the Council on Foreign Relations indicated there was “no evidence to suggest that China is planning to pursue significant democratic reforms in the near term.”

It has been the intent of the Western mindset to use capital-ism to integrate China into democratic reform. China has continued its economic rise without change. Who is integrating who? China’s economy continues to be a topic of daily surveillance.

We will continue our series next month with “Communism in China,” where we will explore the current regime and the struggles it faces in a changing China.

Sources:

Greenspan, Alan. The Age of Turbulence, Adventures in a New World. New York: Penguin Press, 2007.

“The Nixon Visit.” Nixon’s China Game. PBS Online. 1999. 28 Nov. 2007.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/china/sfeature/nixon.html>

Mann, James. The China Fantasy, Why Capitalism Will Not Bring Democracy to China. USA: Penguin Books, 2007.

Menges, Constantine C. China, The Gathering Threat. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005.

From Koinonia House

Political > Current Events > The China Fantasy

Book Review: The China Fantasy Once content with isolationism, China is now asserting itself as a global, fully-communist nuclear superpower. With its eye on reclaiming Taiwan, and strategic alliances with Russia and North Korea, China can no longer be ignored. India, an overlooked giant rising in the east, has the second fastest-growing major economy in the world over the past 15 years and in recent years trails only China and the United States in its contribution to global gross domestic product (GPD) growth. by Mark R. Bright, General Manager

As you can imagine, there are hundreds of books on China and thousands of people that have differing opinions about China’s future. Most of them have one thing in common—they all believe in some form or another that “free trade” will inevitably lead to a free China. There are, however, a few people that hold a different view about the impact of free trade on China.

James Mann is Author in Residence at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. He has written three books on China, including The China Fantasy, and was the Los Angeles Times Beijing bureau chief in the mid ’80s.

The China Fantasy is unique in that it attempts to dissect the seemingly contradictory nature of the United States’ policies towards China.

How is it that we have chosen to allow the most repressive one-party government in the world (based on numbers) to be admitted into the World Trade Organization (WTO), while out of the other side of our mouth we condemn all other such regimes?

What has led to this collapse of common sense judgment and why was it replaced it with rickety arguments that are clearly in contrast to the naked truth about China’s most likely destination in the world community?

James Mann takes us back to the days of the Cold War, when the primary concern—if not the dominating thought in the halls of the White House, Pentagon and Congress with regards to U.S. foreign policy—were focused on how to defeat the Soviet Union.

In China we found a powerful ally against the Russians. Soviet leaders had to dedicate huge amounts of troops and re-sources to guard the Chinese border—troops and resources that could have otherwise been dispatched to Germany or Cuba or other strategic arenas that would have strengthened the march of Soviet Communism elsewhere in the world.

As the Cold War came to an end with the symbolic fall of the Berlin wall, China was no longer a necessary ally of the U.S. There was no opportunity for the U.S. to challenge the one remaining Communist state with any real power. We had dis-patched Communism in Western Europe and Afghanistan and held it at bay in Korea. We could now turn our attention to the Chinese leadership through diplomatic and economic channels. However, by this time the Nixon/Kissinger Doctrine of Engagement had already taken hold. Many U.S. corporations had begun to see the potential of a burgeoning market in China, with up to 900,000,000 potential consumers.

For those who have been marching to the drumbeat of “Free Trade will lead to a Free China,” it is hard to step back and see this argument for what it is—a false doctrine based on a false premise.

South Korean and Taiwan are the models that seem to in-still confidence in the “Free Trade will lead to a Free China” mantra. Mann points out that there are several major flaws in this argument.

Both South Korea and Taiwan were dependent on the U.S. Government for the very existence of their countries. Also, the U.S. was providing financial aid and commerce to South Korea and Taiwan, so had we sanctioned them it would have imploded their fledgling economies. The U.S. put substantial diplomatic pressure on both of these countries to effectively force them to yield to a democratic form of government.

With regards to China after the Second World War, the U.S. had effectively neutralized both of China’s enemies with the dramatic defeat of Japan and the subsequent Cold War and implosion of the Soviet Union.

The Chinese were no longer dependent on the U.S. for protection. As for the economic fulcrums, there was a brief moment in time when the Chinese were vulnerable, but in that moment we determined that a stable China was better than a fragile one and so we blinked.

Mann also addresses the “Think Tank” dilemma. How is it that both the far-right-leaning Heritage Foundation and the far-left-leaning Brookings Institute came to the same conclusion in principle on how the U.S. should deal with China?

Mann tracks the money, as these think tanks are non-profit and depend upon businesses and other institutes for their survival. He even details the account of one major supporter of a prominent think tank, who threatened to withdraw his funding because they had published a conclusion in contrast to his own.

The China Fantasy is a quick read that will provide you with vital information—information that will help you see through the rhetoric and grasp the real motives behind the current U.S. policy towards China.

With China being the most populous nation on earth, with an increase in GDP that has averaged in the double digits over the last decade, and in view of what the Bible says about her future, this is a crucial subject about which we should all be informed.

We know you can purchase the books we review more affordably through other retailers and we thank you for purchasing them from us, as it allows us to continue the ministry of keeping you up to date on the Strategic Trends. You can order this book ($13.00) by calling our office toll-free, mailing in the order form at the back of this issue, or purchasing online at http://store.khouse.org.

The Rise of the Far East - China’s Emergent Superpower Status, India’s meteoric rise on the global scene.

From Koinonia House

Political > Current Events > The Quiet Game

A New Threat on the Horizon: The Quiet Game Do your own homework! The welfare of your family will depend on it. by Chuck Missler

It is difficult - but essential - to gain a perspective on the predicament facing the United States. We need to understand the precariousness of the dollar, the impossible debt burden we collectively face, and the emergent storm clouds on our financial horizon. First, the mountain of debt we are facing.

President Bush and the current Congress have together authorized and borrowed more money from foreign governments, banks, companies, and citizens than all of the previous 42 U.S. administrations combined. From 1776 to 2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions.

In the past four years alone, the Bush Administration has borrowed $1.05 trillion. The Federal debt increases $300 billion each year. In addition, our ”balance” of trade - or lack thereof - runs an annualized deficit of $800 billion. This means that the Treasury must now borrow $3 billion per day! Total U.S. outstanding debt now exceeds a staggering $8 trillion dollars, of which a large majority is owed to foreigners.

The Precarious U.S. Dollar

Two-thirds of world trade is conducted in dollars. Over 70% of central banks’ currency reserves are held in the American currency. The U.S. dollar is the sole currency used by international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

This confers on the U.S. a major economic advantage: the ability to run a trade deficit year after year. It can do this because foreign countries need dollars to repay their debts to the IMF, to conduct international trade, and to build up their currency reserves. The U.S. provides the world with these dollars by buying goods and services produced by foreign countries, but since it does not have a corresponding need for foreign currency, it can sell far fewer goods and services in return. Thus, the U.S. always spends more than it earns, whereas the rest of the world always earns more than it spends. This U.S. trade deficit has now reached extraordinary levels, with the U.S. importing 50% more goods and services than it exports: currently $800 billion annualized.

Getting a share of this economic free lunch has been one of the motivations behind establishing the euro. Were the euro to become a reserve currency equal to, or perhaps even instead of, the dollar, countries could reduce their dollar holdings while building up their euro savings. E.U. countries would be able to reduce their subsidy to American consumption and other countries would then be subsidizing E.U. consumption instead.

A move away from the dollar towards the euro would have a disastrous effect on the U.S. economy as the U.S. would no longer be able to spend beyond its means. Worse still, the U.S. would have to become a net currency importer as foreigners would undoubtedly seek to spend back in the U.S. a large proportion of the estimated three trillion dollars which they currently own. Furthermore, the U.S. would have to run a trade surplus - for the first time in a century - providing the rest of the world with more goods and services than it receives in return.

A Crash Ahead?

A rapid and wholesale move to the euro might even lead to a dollar crash as everyone sought to get rid of some, or all, of their dollars at the same time. But that is not an outcome that Europe, Russia, and China would be seeking because of the huge effect it would have on the world economy. A ‘’soft landing” would appear to be in everyone’s interest (except, of course, Islam’s). The problem is that when investors see a downward trend in the making, there tends to be a stampede for the exits.

The Oil Factor

Sales of oil and natural gas on international markets have been exclusively denominated in dollars, because originally the U.S. was the world’s leading oil producer - up until the early 1950s, the U.S. accounted for half or more of the world’s annual oil production. The tendency to price in dollars was additionally reinforced by the Bretton Woods agreement, which established the IMF and the World Bank and adopted the dollar as the currency for international loans. The vast majority of the world’s countries are oil importers and, since oil is such a crucial commodity - and increasingly so - the need to pay for it in dollars encourages these countries keep the majority of their foreign currency reserves in dollars, not only to be able to buy oil directly but also to protect the value of their own currencies from falling against the dollar.

The fact that oil sales, and loans from the IMF, are dollar denominated also encourages poorer countries to denominate their exports in dollars, as this minimizes the risk of losses through any fluctuations in the value of the dollar. Furthermore, since many of these exports are essential raw materials which richer countries need to import, their denomination in dollars reinforces the need for rich countries to keep their own currency reserves in dollars. Seventy percent of the world’s currency reserves are in dollars. At the moment.

The Quiet Game

While the denomination of oil sales is not a subject that is frequently discussed in the media, its importance is certainly well understood by governments. For example, in 1971 President Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard and OPEC considered moving away from dollar oil pricing, as dollars no longer had the guaranteed value they once did. The U.S. response was various secret deals with Saudi Arabia in the 1970s to ensure that the world’s most important oil exporter stuck with the dollar. And since the Saudis did, OPEC followed suit.

The Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian Oil Bourse¹ is scheduled to commence operations on March 20, 2006. This bourse will be a trading exchange whereby the nations of the world will now have the option of selling and purchasing their oil in euros rather than dollars. This Bourse will directly compete with the two American-owned exchanges: The International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) in London, and the NYMEX (New York Mercantile Exchange). This represents a direct threat to the supremacy of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The availability to shift to non-dollar reserves would create a major structural change in the global monetary environment and could usher in a traumatic effect on the U.S. economy.

Numerous economists have expressed alarm about Iran’s ambitions, saying that ”the impact of the Iran Oil Bourse on the American dollar - and the U.S. economy - could be worse than Iran launching a direct nuclear attack.” (Some pundits have even suggested that this could be an additional explanation for why the Islamic republic appears to be the U.S.’s next target.)

According to a recent report by Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the dollar’s position is already on the decline in many countries. China has officially declared that it will diversify a part of its foreign exchange holdings into oil by building a strategic petroleum reserve. Construction of the storage tanks has begun but will take several years to complete.

Other Indicators

The new expansive leader of the Federal Reserve, ”Helicopter Ben” Benanke, has replaced Alan Greenspan. The only hope in addressing the mountain of debt we all face will be to repay it with cheaper dollars: inflation is virtually a certainty. During Alan Greenspan’s tenure at the Fed, the dollar was reduced in value by half. More to come, but can it be controlled? It is very significant that the Fed will now no longer be publishing its report card, the M3 liquidity index, which economists have traditionally used to monitor the liquidity of the U.S. Hmm.

America has become the world’s largest debtor. Who’s really in charge? The Bible warns us:

The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. - Proverbs 22:7 [show/hide]Proverbs 22:7 [7]The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.

Your personal stewardship plans need to maintain surveillance on the likelihood of serious inflation ahead, and perhaps worse…

Hosea, Can You See? - Audio CD - Chuck MisslerChuck Missler sheds some light on the startling and humbling parallels between our society and that of the prophet Hosea. These are warning we would be wise not to ignore. Click for more information - Audio CD