An Iranian Strategy

Killing Kassem Soleimani, the leader and General in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Al Quds forces, brought a sense of justice and closure to many.  This was especially so in Israel. There is not really any push back here, unlike among the Democrats in America. Just about all leaders, left, right and center, think this was the right thing to do.  


Many here hope for more. They would like to see Iran provoke the United States into a massive retaliation.  It is possible that a massive retaliation would take out Iran’s air force, missiles and missile bases, navy, oil fields and ultimately their nuclear facilities. Some think this could lead to the collapse of the regime (but would Iran’s military permit this?)  (Is this John Bolton’s hope?) We can think of a world without this terrorist-sponsoring nation that seeks to dominate the whole Middle East and to bring about domination from the Shiite form of Islam. 


Iran does serve one positive purpose.  Their existence has broken down the united front against Israel in the Sunni Muslim world.  In a kind of unspoken and loose secret alliance for pragmatic reasons, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, United Arab Emirates, and others now join Israel in opposition to Iran. Could this even lead to diplomatic breakthroughs?  May God have a purpose in mind for allowing Iran’s present regime to continue? Israeli geopolitical strategists do see how Iran has pushed Israel and some of the Arab nations into cooperation. 


However, from my point of view, in spite of the secondary benefits, with Iran’s actions in many nations and not only the Middle East, and with the danger of Iran’s nuclear bomb, it would be best that the intention of the United States and the West would be to eventually carry out the full attack.  It would not take a ground war. It could be very quick. Israel would probably have to fight Hezbollah in Lebanon in its one last desperate action. It is best not to depend on Iran to gain good relationships with the Gulf Muslim countries. 


The Democrats say that they do not want to see us at War.  President Trump says the same. But we have been at war for many years. It is an asymmetric war and is based on both radical Shiite and Sunni ideologies that seek to use violence and conquering through war to gain their objective of Islamic world conquest.  It begins with the Middle East and Pakistan. Turkey is with the Islamists now. (We are deluded to think they are a NATO ally.) Then it is the struggle for Africa, as we see in Somalia, Sudan, Niger, Chad, Nigeria, Kenya, and so many more nations. The world war has begun, but as yet the West will not admit it.  Politically correct people won’t see the problem. Russia and China play with Islamic tyrants and think they can control it while devastatingly crushing their own Muslim populations. 


We speak of strategy from a geopolitical point of view.  How do we fit this into the Biblical accounts about the last invasion of Israel being mostly described as from what are today Muslim nations?  More and more writers are taking the last invasion to be Muslim led. (W. Shoebat and J. Richardson). Nations cannot base their policies on such biblical pictures of the last days.  God can bring long delays in the process that eventually leads to the end. Acting for national self-interest and only secondarily for justice will guide even relatively good nations. The Biblical exhortation to rescue the perishing being led to death (Pr. 24:11) is not heeded by political leaders even if the cost is not high. (eg. Rwanda genocide, Syria chemical bombing).   We hope for policies that do two things. One is policies, even if inadvertent or unintentional, that will bring the greatest mercy and justice to the largest number. Secondly, we desire policies that will lead to the greatest spread of the Gospel.