Saudi Arabia would move quickly to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran successfully tests an atomic bomb, according to a report. Citing an unidentified Saudi Arabian source, the Times newspaper in the U.K. (which operates behind a pay wall) said that the kingdom would seek to buy ready-made warheads and also begin its own program to enrich weapons-grade uranium.

The paper suggested that Pakistan was the country most likely to supply Saudi Arabia with weapons, saying Western officials were convinced there was an understanding between the countries to do so if the security situation in the Persian Gulf gets worse. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have denied such an arrangement exists. Iran, which follows the Shiite branch of Islam, and Sunni Saudi Arabia are major regional rivals.

The Times described its source for the story as a “senior Saudi,” but gave no other details. “There is no intention currently to pursue a unilateral military nuclear program, but the dynamics will change immediately if the Iranians develop their own nuclear capability,” the source told the newspaper. “Politically, it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom.”

It also cited an unnamed Western official as saying that Saudi Arabia would ask Pakistan to honor the alleged agreement “the next day” after any Iranian nuclear bomb test. The U.S. and other nations suspect that Iran is using its civilian nuclear work as a cover for a weapons program, but Iran insists that its nuclear ambitions are strictly peaceful. The U.S. has used sanctions and diplomacy to pressure Iran on the issue, but has long refused to rule out military action saying that all options are on the table. Israel is also believed to be contemplating a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In a statement issued Friday by the Pakistan Embassy in Saudi Arabia, Ambassador Mohammed Naeem Khan was quoted as saying that “each Pakistani considers (the) security of Saudi Arabia as his personal matter.” Naeem also said that the Saudi leadership considered Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to be one country. In January this year, Saudi Arabia’s former ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, said in an interview with The Associated Press that unless a zone free of weapons of mass destruction was created in the Mideast there would “inevitably” be a nuclear arms race, and “that’s not going to be in the favor of anybody.”

He stressed that the Gulf states were committed not to acquire WMD. “But we’re not the only players in town. You have Turkey. You have Iraq which has a track record of wanting to go nuclear. You have Egypt. They had a very vibrant nuclear energy program from the 1960s. You have Syria. You have other players in the area that could open Pandora’s box,” the Saudi prince told The AP.

Asked whether Saudi Arabia would maintain its commitment against acquiring WMD, Turki said: “What I suggest for Saudi Arabia and for the other Gulf states … is that we must study carefully all the options, including the option of acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We can’t simply leave it for somebody else to decide for us.”

Turki is also a former Saudi intelligence chief and remains an influential member of the Saudi royal family. Turki said the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council should guarantee a nuclear security umbrella for Mideast countries that join a nuclear-free zone — and impose “military sanctions” against countries seen to be developing nuclear weapons.

“I think that’s a better way of going at this issue of nuclear enrichment of uranium, or preventing Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction,” he said in the AP interview. In October, the U.S. claimed that agents linked to Iran’s Qud’s Force, an elite wing of the Revolutionary Guard, were involved in a plot to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S., Adel Al-Jubeir. Iran said the claims were “baseless.”

‘Meddling’

Turki said in November that there was “ample and heinous” evidence that Iran was behind the alleged plot. He added that the evidence “indicates the depths of depravity and unreason to which the (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad regime has sunk.” Turki called the plot “the tip of the iceberg,” saying Iran was “meddling” in the affairs of many other countries, including Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan and especially Iraq.

The Saudi government has also accused a terror cell linked to Iran of plotting to blow up its embassy in Bahrain, as well as the causeway linking the island kingdom to Saudi Arabia. In a secret diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks, Saudi King Abdullah allegedly urged Washington to strike at Iran and “cut off the head of the snake.” Turki dismissed the cable in November, telling reporters that Saudi Arabia supported sanctions and diplomatic pressure against Iran but not a military strike.

He said military action would only stiffen Iran’s resolve, rally support for the regime and at best delay, but not halt, the nuclear program. “Such an act I think would be foolish, and to undertake it I think would be tragic,” he said.

Revelation 18:4-7:

And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.  For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.  Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her.  In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’

from Independent Ireland:

A HOMILY delivered at Knock shrine by the Bishop of Raphoe, Philip Boyce, is being investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions following a formal complaint by a leading humanist who claims the sermon was an incitement to hatred.

 The gardai have confirmed to former Fine Gael election candidate John Colgan that they have prepared and forwarded a file to the DPP after he made allegations that the address by Dr Boyce was in breach of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989.

The homily, entitled: “To Trust in God” was delivered to worshippers during a novena at the Marian shrine in Co Mayo last August and subsequently reported in the media, including The Irish Times, under the headline: “‘Godless culture’ attacking church, says bishop.”

Mr Colgan, a retired chartered engineer and economist from Leixlip, Co Kildare, referred in his formal complaint to two key passages in Dr Boyce’s homily which he believes broke the law.

One of the passages referred to the Catholic Church in Ireland being “attacked from outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture”.

A second passage, which was included in the complaint, stated: “For the distinguishing mark of Christian believers is the fact they have a future; it is not that they know all the details that await them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness.”

Mr Colgan, who was a leader in the ‘Campaign to Separate Church and State’ in the late 1990s, said in his complaint: “I believe statements of this kind are an incitement to hatred of dissidents, outsiders, secularists, within the meaning of the [Incitement to Hatred] Act, who are perfectly good citizens within the meaning of the civil law. The statements exemplify the chronic antipathy towards secularists, humanists etc, which has manifested itself in the ostracising of otherwise perfectly good Irish citizens, who do not share the aims of the Vatican’s Irish Mission Church.”

To back up his complaint, Mr Colgan referred to two statistical surveys carried out two decades apart by the Jesuit sociologist and academic Fr Michael MacGreil, entitled: ‘Prejudice and Tolerance in Ireland’ and ‘Prejudice in Ireland Revisited’ which Mr Colgan claims showed “marked prejudice by Roman Catholics and other Christian denominations against agnostics and atheists” (humanist was not an option offered to respondents in either survey).

In his complaint, Mr Colgan said he attributed this prejudice to “hostile propaganda disseminated in school and chapel in the main by or for the institutional churches, for there is no rational or temporal reason”. In a statement to the Sunday Independent, Martin Long of the Catholic Communications office said: “Bishop Boyce’s homily ‘To Trust in God’ is available for anyone to read at catholicbishops.ie.

“I advise any person to read it and judge it for themselves. It is clearly a reasonable, balanced, honest — and indeed self-critical from a church perspective — analysis of the value of the Catholic faith. Bishop Boyce is a good and holy man and much loved by those who know him.”

After the homily was delivered late last summer, Mr Colgan wrote personally to the cleric seeking a corrective statement.

Dr Boyce responded saying that in his homily he did “not wish to disparage in any way the sincere efforts of those with no religious beliefs, atheists, humanists etc.

“I have too much respect for each human person, since I believe all are created in the image of God. At Knock I wished to encourage and confirm the hope of believers, even in the present challenging times, since trust in God was the theme I was given.”

Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the church is a continuation of Israel (replacement/covenant theology), or the church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism).

Replacement theology teaches that the church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian church, not in Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are “spiritualized” or “allegorized” into promises of God’s blessing for the church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?

The view that Israel and the church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. Biblically speaking, the church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost and will continue until it is taken to heaven at the rapture (Ephesians 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). The church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God’s program during these past 2000 years of dispersion.

After the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the great tribulation for the second coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth, at the end of the tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel which survives the tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1-5).

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial/dispensational understanding of God’s plan for Israel. Even so, the strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1-7, where it says six times that Christ’s kingdom will last 1000 years. After the tribulation the Lord will return and establish His kingdom with the nation of Israel, Christ will reign over the whole earth, and Israel will be the leader of the nations. The church will reign with Him for a literal thousand years. The church has not replaced Israel in God’s plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role as the nation He has chosen (Romans 11).

Joint US-Israel drill called off by Netanyahu, to Washington’s surprise

Debkafile’s sources disclose exclusively that, contrary to recent reports published in Washington, Jerusalem – and this site too – it was Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, not the Obama administration, who decided to call off the biggest ever joint US-Israeli military exercise Austere Challenge 12 scheduled for April 2012.

Washington was taken aback by the decision. It was perceived as a mark of Israel’s disapproval for the administration’s apparent hesitancy in going through with the only tough sanctions with any chance of working against Iran’s nuclear weapon program: penalizing its central bank and blocking payments for its petroleum exports.

This was the first time Israel had ever postponed a joint military exercise; it generated a seismic moment in relations between the US and Israel at a time when Iran has never been so close to producing a nuclear weapon.

This week, Netanyahu further orchestrated a series of uncharacteristically critical statements by senior ministers: Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon called the Obama administration “hesitant” (Jan. 15), after which Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged the Americans to “move from words to deeds” (Jan 16). The underlying message was that the Israeli government felt free to attack Iran’s nuclear sites on its own if necessary and at a time of its choosing. Debkafile’s sources report that Netanyahu decided on this extreme course after careful consideration when he judged the Obama administration’s resolve to preempt a nuclear Iran to be flagging, as indicated by four omissions:

1. Washington has taken no action against Iran’s capture of the RQ-170 stealth drone on Dec. 4 more than a month after the event, and not even pressed President Obama’s demand of Dec. 12 for the drone’s return. Tehran, for its part, continues to make hay from the event: This week, our Iranian sources report, the Islamic Republic circulated a new computer game called “Down the RQ-170.” Players assemble the drone from the components shown on their screens and then launch it for attacks on America.

2. Silence from Washington also greeted the start of 20-percent grade uranium enrichment at the underground Fordo facility near Qom when it was announced Jan. 9. Last November, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned in two US TV interviews (Nov. 17 and 22) that as soon as the Fordo facility went on stream, Iran would start whisking the rest of its nuclear facilities into underground bunkers, out of reach and sight of US and Israeli surveillance.

Barak made it clear at the time that Israel could not live with this development; therefore, the Netanyahu government believes Israel’s credibility is now at stake.

3. Exactly three weeks ago, on Jan. 3 Lt. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, Iran’s Army chief, announced that the aircraft carrier USS Stennis and other “enemy ships” would henceforth be barred from entering the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz . Yet since then, no US carrier has put this threat to the test by attempting a crossing. Tehran has been left to crow.

4. Even after approving sanctions on Iran’s central bank and energy industry, the White House announced they would be introduced in stages in the course of the year. According to Israeli’s calculus, another six months free of stiff penalties will give Iran respite for bringing its nuclear weapon program to a dangerous and irreversible level. source – DEBKA

The euro zone maelstrom refuses to end. Thanks to the debt crisis, some Greek officials are contemplating dumping the common currency for the drachma. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain teeter. A decade after the shared currency was heralded as a 21st-century tool for peace and prosperity, it turns out that currency unions aren’t such a hot idea.

Not so fast, though. This is undeniably a period of epic turmoil, and many economists will tell you that sovereign states need sovereign currencies—full stop. But this notion ignores a fundamental truth: Countries with their own currency may have monetary independence, but in reality—as gun battles in Libya, CDOs in the US, and tsunamis in Japan have taught us—we are only becoming more economically intertwined, regardless of what our coins look like.

Step back from the current crisis to consider the long view, and currency unions—or even a single global currency—have a fair share of appeal. A universal medium of exchange could eliminate currency risk and jack up trade. It would mean speculators couldn’t short an individual country’s currency. Exporters wouldn’t have to fret over the gap between a price on a contract and the value of the payment. A single currency could halt spastic swings in prices and end conversion fees, leaving more of the pie for little stuff like R&D and employee health insurance. Oh—and it could put an end to international disputes over currency manipulation. Hello? China?

True, sovereign currencies afford the ability to manipulate the money supply, jiggle the handle of interest rates, and buy up piles of toxic assets. When a boom goes bust, devaluing currency is the least bad way for governments to rein in wages and prices that are suddenly too high. But if you use the same currency as another country that isn’t in dire straits, good luck convincing them to accept devaluation on your nation’s behalf. (This is part of the reason for the euro zone impasse.)

But does this mean we don’t see a global currency in our future? For many, the answer is no. A recent Pew Research poll reveals that 41 percent of Americans expect it by 2050. Maybe the idea has been planted in our heads by leftist utopians and science fiction authors: a system of “credits” is used in everything from Star Wars, Star Trek, and Babylon 5 to the Foundation book series. Yet the idea has also been touted by economics titans like John Maynard Keynes.

The fact is, the modern economy and monetary system are too precarious for us not to examine every possible way to protect against future shocks—including going all in on a universal currency. It’s a bit like geoengineering: radical and outrageous at first blush but, given humanity’s current predicament, not as outrageous as dismissing it out of hand.

Some pundits insist that gold could do the trick or that we could achieve many of the benefits of a global currency by tying the value of national ones to a set amount of the shiny stuff. But most economists view a return to gold as anachronistic, absurd, and even hazardous. Maybe, but it’s possible they’re saying so because reviving the gold standard is so incongruous with the present and not necessarily because reordaining gold would result in a system inferior to today’s tumultuous one.

Of course, the universal currency could be the US dollar, and in some ways that’s already the case. The greenback is what central banks hold the most of on reserve, and it’s the currency used for the vast majority of international transactions. But the dollar’s special status seems less stable than ever—and will worsen if Washington can’t overcome its paralysis to deal with the debt.

Perhaps the seed for that universal currency has already been planted. The International Monetary Fund uses something called Special Drawing Rights, a crossbreed of four of the world’s key currencies, to make certain kinds of settlements between IMF members. Could SDR someday morph into the One Coin to Rule Them All? If so, some lucky designer will have a field day mashing up $, ¥, £, and, yes, €.

A global currency may indeed prove to be a vision best left in the realm of fantasy. But it would behoove us to seriously analyze the pros and cons before ditching the idea in favor of today’s smorgasbord of euros, pesos, yuan, and Malawi kwacha.

What we see in this article is the  U.S.& European led NATO organization, originally a trans Atlantic military organization meant to protect Western Europe from a Russian and Warsaw Pact invasion expanding its activities and influence into other areas of the world.

In this instance into Israel, where it will have prophetic implications.

from ynet news:

NATO forces are scheduled to participate, for the first time, in a home front drill that will be held in Israel next October.

In recent years, the IDF took part in several exercises held by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization abroad, but has never hosted its members in Israel.

The drill, dubbed “Turning Point 6,” will simulate a massive earthquake leading to wide-scale destruction and large amounts of casualties.

NATO Search and rescue units, as well as supporting units will arrive in Israel to take part in the drill, which will also include Israel’s emergency services, the Police, Magen David Adom, fire services, as well as local authorities, governmental ministries, and representatives from the political echelon.

Two weeks ago, Minister for Home Front Defense Matan Vilnai met with NATO Deputy Secretary General Claudio Bisogniero in Brussels to discuss the details of the joint exercise.

During his visit, Vilnai also met with other senior members of the organization and officials from the European Union in order to discuss future cooperation between Israel and Europe on emergency and crisis management issues.

“We have a big interest in deepening and widening our ties with the Union and with NATO,” said Vilnai, adding that “both Europe and Israel can benefit from steady cooperation on preparedness and response to emergencies and crises.”

This above quotation from the December 1st newsletter released by Ron McGatllin, whose own apostolic network is working alongside C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation, who takes a classic Dominionist position that Satan’s deception in the Garden of Eden was a matter of keeping the church from ruling the world – thereby thwarting the church’s divine destiny and purpose. The Dominionist strategy is to re-take the world via any vehicle upon which they can hitch a ride – community and civic involvement, peace promotion, political and social action, cultural and worldview change, societal engineering, corporate and philanthropic endeavors, partnerships and collaborations with global entities, etc. These methods for achieving Dominion are often called “spiritual warfare.” Additionally, various forms of esoteric, hyper-spiritual altered-state-of-consciousness activities, are practiced within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR/IHOP) Dominionist camp under the term “spiritual warfare.”

In his most recent newsletter McGatlin, like an increasing number of New Age/NAR/IHOP and evangelical leaders, is giving credence to the significance of the year 2012. Under his brand of eschatology, the “Bride of Christ” is to “manifest the presence of God” and “eventually plant the kingdom of God” on earth. In this worldview, spiritual warfare it something that is waged against external threats to the church. Lip service may be given to traditional understandings about resisting sin, but the over-riding Dominionist principle of spiritual warfare is based on the heretical premise that enemies of the Lord (however this is defined by various groups) must be conquered and ruled over, including ultimately sin and death. This, of course, negates the necessity of Christ’s salvation, His shed blood for our sins on the cross. Dominion becomes a method of reversing the effects of the curse. . . . . . .

read the full article here.

“Europe, the Holy Father recalled, had had its eras of greatness when a common faith had animated the hearts of its peoples. Europe, he urged, could have its geopolitical greatness again, refurbished and burnished anew, if it could create a new heart. Europe, he intimated, could again forge a supernal, common and binding faith.

“Inwardly, the [six foreign] ministers winced. Pius [XII] had pointed to the greatest difficulty facing the EEC [European Economic Community] upon the day of its birth [March 25, 1957]. Beneath his words lay the warning that neither democratic socialism nor capitalist democracy nor the prospect of the good life nor a mystic ‘Europa’ of the humanists could provide the engine to drive their dream [for a new world order based on a unified Europe]. Practically speaking, their new Europe lacked a glowing center, a superior force or principle to bind it together and drive it forward. Practically speaking, their Europe lacked what this Pope had. Lacked what he was.” – Malachi Martin, Windswept House

Unfolding Biblical Eschatology*

The Bible paints quite a clear picture of the major events that precede the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth. While many of the smaller details may be difficult to interpret, the major events concerning the world’s religious, economic and political future are evident in Revelation, chapters 13, 17 and 18.

The False Prophet

A world religious figure will rise to prominence. He unites all the world’s religions into one universal religion. This religious leader looks like a man of God. He performs miracles and even looks similar to Jesus Christ (Revelation 13:11; 5:6). But, he receives his power from the Antichrist and, ultimately from Satan. He is known as the False Prophet (Revelation 19:20).

The Beast or Antichrist

A second figure comes on the scene. Whereas the first world leader is religious and unites all people under a single world religion, the second man is political and unites the world’s people under a single world government. We commonly know him as the Antichrist. The Antichrist does not only unite the world under one political system, but he establishes a single world monetary system which abolishes all private or individual business transactions that are not part of the global system (Revelation 13:17).

Strange Bedfellows

The relationship between the False Prophet and the Antichrist is an interesting one. The Antichrist (political) empowers the False Prophet (religious). But ultimately the False Prophet causes the whole world to worship the Antichrist (Revelation 13:12). The False Prophet also encourages the people of the world to subscribe to the world financial and economic system and to receive the mark of the Beast (Antichrist) which gives them access to the financial system. Thus the global economy, political authority and religion become intertwined. This all happens in the name of a unity which sounds good but is not. It is a bad unity because it is man-centered and is a unity that plots against the Lord and His Anointed. As the Psalmist asks, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” (Psalm 2:1-6)

How do we move from a world of separate economies, religions and governments to a single planetary system? This will not happen by military might, but as individual governments cede their sovereignty to become part of a one-world government. Three factors will dictate this to happen:

•First, world citizens will seek peace from terrorism through unity.

•Second, the nations will be deceived into believing that the Antichrist holds the key to the world’s prosperity, that he will solve the world’s political and financial woes. And

•Third, this unity will happen because of God’s plan: “For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled” (Revelation 17:17).

The G20 Summit

Practically, the world’s leaders will realize that their individual economies are so intertwined and the only way to solve the ever-increasing financial crises is to bring all the separate economies under one roof. Those informed regarding world affairs will recognize there exists an ever-increasing number of influential leaders who have begun to promote the idea of a global economy. The most significant of these is the G20 which in recent years has made several statements advocating such a global economy.

The Vatican

But the most startling statements were recently made in a 41 page “note” by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, published in several languages on October 24, 2011. Speaking for Pope Ratzinger, the Council’s document is filled with legal verbiage and complicated language, but is an amazing document to read. It is amazing because almost word-for-word, it bears upon the prophecies of Revelation 13, 17 and 18, and places Rome at the center of the prophetic drama! . . . . . . .

read the full article here.

I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords.  Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet; Gomer and all its troops; the house of Togarmah from the far north and all its troops—many people are with you.  

from abc news:

Russia is facing a heightened risk of being drawn into conflicts at its borders that have the potential of turning nuclear, the nation’s top military officer said Thursday.

Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, cautioned over NATO’s expansion eastward and warned that the risks of Russia being pulled into local conflicts have “risen sharply.” 

Makarov added, according to Russian news agencies, that “under certain conditions local and regional conflicts may develop into a full-scale war involving nuclear weapons.”

A steady decline in Russia’s conventional forces has prompted the Kremlin to rely increasingly on its nuclear deterrent.

The nation’s military doctrine says it may use nuclear weapons to counter a nuclear attack on Russia or an ally, or a large-scale conventional attack that threatens Russia’s existence.

Russia sees NATO’s expansion to include former Soviet republics and ex-members of the Soviet bloc in eastern and central Europe as a key threat to Russia’s security.

Makarov specifically referred to NATO’s plans to offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine as potentially threatening Russia’s security. Russia routed Georgian forces in a brief August 2008 war over a separatist province of South Ossetia. Moscow later recognized South Ossettia and another breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia as independent states and increased its military presence there.

Makarov warned that the planned pullout of NATO forces from Afghanistan could trigger conflicts in neighboring ex-Soviet Central Asian nations that could “grow into a large-scale war.”

In its military doctrine, Russia has also described U.S. missile defense plans as another major security challenge, saying it could threaten its nuclear forces and undermine their deterrence potential.

Moscow has agreed to consider NATO’s proposal last fall to cooperate on the missile shield, but the talks have been deadlocked over how the system should operate. Russia has insisted that the system should be run jointly, which NATO has rejected.

Makarov also said Russia is struggling to get enough recruits for the 1-million military, as the number of draftees has shrunk dramatically because of demographical changes.

He said that the military is aiming to gradually increase the number of contract soldiers and eventually form an all-volunteer army. He didn’t mention a specific time frame.

The statement marked a sharp change of course for the top military brass who previously insisted that Russia needs to maintain the highly unpopular draft because an all-volunteer military would be too costly.

Shock is acceptable if one is surprised by something completely unexpected.

This is something that does not apply in any way, shape, or form to some Arab and non-Arab writers, media figures, and [political] analysts, who are today expressing their shock and disappointment with regards to the course that the so-called Arab Spring has taken. Today, those who supported the Egyptian revolution are in a state of shock with regards to the domination of the political arena by religious parties and currents. 

This is something that has expanded beyond the Egyptian scene. Indeed what we are seeing is a political Islamist tsunami occupying the scene and displacing the “civil” youth. In Libya, we find [religious] fundamentalists of all backgrounds, from those who have taken up arms, to those who are making speeches and giving sermons, inside the country and abroad, not to mention figures like Ali al-Salabi.

Whilst in Tunisia, the [Islamist] al-Nahda party, and supporters of its leader Rashid Ghannouchi, are in the political ascendency. As for Yemen, we have the Islah [Reform] party, not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood and the Huthi rebels.

I recall how many Arab writers at the beginning of this year – the year of the Arab Spring – prophesied that what we were witnessing were uprisings staged by non-political civilians and youth, and claimed that not a single radical or ideological slogan was chanted in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, or any other Arab public square.

They said that this proves that the Arab regimes were lying to the world – and to the political elites who champion the idea of the civil state – when they said that should their regimes be toppled, this would result in Islamists and religious fundamentalists coming to power. Those who supported the Arab Spring always countered that this was nothing more than a lie fabricated by these regimes to remain in power, and that the Arab Spring youth had proved their mettle and their belief in civil values.

Now, these same well-intentioned writers – or at least many of them – have returned to warn against the Arab Spring being hijacked and despoiled. They have expressed their confusion about the presence and popularity of these radical Islamists who are overwhelming the political scene, and are asking: where did the Facebook youth go?  

These writes are perplexed. Some have claimed: this situation [hegemony of the Islamists] is the work of the remnants of the former regime that have reformed their ranks and are working to abort the revolution. Whilst others have claimed that there are foreign hands tampering with the revolution and attempting to alter its course, however they then go on to disagree as to just which foreign party is responsible for this. Is it Iran or Israel? The US or Saudi Arabia? Perhaps it is China, or maybe even the Comoro Islands? Who knows? It’s all just a shot in the dark!

Whilst there are also those who say that it is only natural for there to be confusion and a lack of vision during a post-revolutionary period, and that this is something that is often exploited by political figures. Of course those same writers and media figures were not voicing such opinions at the beginning of the year. In fact, they were attacking anybody who expressed any suspicion or skepticism regarding the outcome of these chaotic uprisings!

The realists amongst those who are now “shocked” by the outcome of these uprisings and revolutions, are now saying: fine, let the Islamists try their luck. Either they will develop in the same manner as Turkey’s Islamist political parties – which is what we want – or they will fail and we will be spared their evil in the future!

In my view, this last argument is misleading because it is based on a faulty assumption that Islamists in the Arab World have never been in power, and that this is their first opportunity to do so. However the facts show that Islamists have ruled Sudan and Iran and that they are now ruling Iraq (the al-Sadr and Maliki version of Islamism, at least).

This is not to mention the fact that Islamists have been strongly present in successive Jordanian and Yemeni governments, indeed the Islah party were partners in government with the ruling party in Yemen for a number of years.

Therefore this is a wrong assumption. The other issue is, what guarantee do we have that these religious fundamentalists will relinquish power once their failure is revealed, particularly as all the elements of power will be in their hands? Did this work out in Iran which has been ruled by Khomeneist disciples for over 3 decades?

Rather than expressing shock and surprise, the question that should be asked is: how should we deal with this critical period which should be called the Muslim Brotherhood Spring, not the Arab Spring?

(Mshari al-Zaydi, is a Saudi journalist and expert on Islamic movements and Islamic fundamentalism as well as Saudi affairs. Mshari is also Asharq al-Awsat’s opinion page Editor. The article first appeared on Nov. 5, 2011 in Asharq al-Awsat)