Changing Alliances
(Signs of the Time - December 2001)
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. the world headlines have continuously focused on the war against the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. Lost in these headlines are some interesting political changes that have transpired since Sept 11, 2001. These changes have long term scriptural significance in that countries like Iran and Russia have changed their political stripes and realigned themselves closer to the Western powers.
Iran
For the past decade, Iran has been considered by the United States government a rogue
State. Recent policy changes in Iran, however, have brought about a reevaluation of Iran
by the U.S. The New York Times of October 15, 2001 reported: "In an
important sign of growing cooperation with the United States in its war against
Afghanistan, Iran has sent a secret message to the Bush administration agreeing to rescue
any American military personnel in distress." In its war in Afghanistan, the
United States needs at least the tacit support of Iran, which shares a 560- mile border
with Afghanistan and supplies weapons, logistical, and financial support to the
anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. The changes made by Iran have been extremely significant
since the terrorist attacks. Again from the Times article: "Mohsen Rezai,
the former head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard who now serves as the secretary of the
powerful Expediency Council, said Iran was willing to set aside its concerns about the
American attacks on Afghanistan and work with the United States in its war on terrorism,
perhaps including the sharing of intelligence. If the Americans get trapped in the swamp
of Afghanistan, they will definitely need Iran, Mr. Rezai said."
In a remarkable change of position, the U.S. now considers Iran a friendly nation rather than an enemy State. The New York Times reported there, "appears to be a significant shift in Iranian-American relations since the September 11 attacks on the United States. The Bush administration has set aside for now its criticism of Iran for supporting Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim militant group based in Lebanon, and the Palestinian group, Hamas. It did not include either group on two lists of terrorist groups and individuals whose assets have been frozen because of the attacks." In addition, the US administration for the first time, asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit brought against Iran by the 52 Americans who were held hostage for 444 days beginning in 1979 and many of their relatives, who are seeking damages from the Tehran government. As well, the Bush administration opened a full-scale interagency review of American policy toward Iran. The State Department, with its policy-planning director, Richard N. Haass, taking the lead, has tried to accelerate the review since the attacks.
Russia
Russia also has undertaken several dramatic changes since September 11. In particular:
A short 12 months ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited the Lourdes Cuban radar
station and informed workers there on the importance of the radar site. The site had been
operational for almost 40 years and is utilized as a vehicle to spy on the United States.
October 17,2001, Mr. Putin did an about face and announced the closure of the Lourdes
signals intelligence base in Cuba. CNN reported: "from the American viewpoint, the
Lourdes base and its 1,500 Russian intelligence personnel -- capable of monitoring nearly
all communications in the southeastern United States -- have been one of the thorniest
obstacles to friendly bilateral relations." Now that the base has been closed,
relations between Russia and the US have started to improve. In addition to the base
closure, Russia has undertaken several other initiatives which have met with resounding
applause from the United States and other Western powers.
Russia has offered expertise, antibiotics and vaccines to help the United States counter a growing anthrax scare. Russia inherited the Soviet Union’s deep bio-weapons program and traditionally has been hostile to sharing any of the fruits of its high-tech military programs with the United States.
Perhaps the most conspicuous about-face, however, has been Russia’s near-silence on U.S. plans for National Missile Defense (NMD) since September 11. Normally, Russian officials can be expected to emphatically naysay the proposal whenever a U.S. official comments on the virtues of NMD. What few whispers there have been shatter traditional Russian thinking. Putin now says the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that bars NMD development can be modified within the scope of Russian interests. More importantly, he publicly has ruled out requiring Washington to abandon NMD as the price for Russian cooperation in Afghanistan. Some sort of NMD deal will probably be formalized as early as November, when Bush and Putin meet in Texas.
At NATO headquarters October 3, Putin continued the series of surprises: He said Russia would no longer oppose NATO expansion if the West can prove the alliance is becoming more of a political and less of a military organization. In a single speech, Putin revived what the world had thought was a moot issue and indicated Russian acquiescence to NATO expansion in former Soviet republics. Putin also said that regardless of NATO’s future shape, Russia very much wants to tighten Russian-NATO relations at every level. Even couched with "if," his words showed considerable flexibility, certainly more than Russia had voiced before.
At home, Putin is also cleaning up slovenly financial practices. In early 2001, Russia flatly refused to pay off the Paris Club debt it inherited from the Soviet Union, triggering a spat with Germany, Russia’s largest creditor and trading partner. But in a radical departure from past financial brinksmanship, Putin announced October 11 that Russia would begin paying off its loans ahead of schedule.
Summary
What may have seemed unlikely even three months ago, both Iran and Russia have made
friendly gestures of the West. Our understanding of scripture tells us that this is
certainly a temporary alliance, for the West is not with the Gogian host as described in
Ezekiel 38. The Western powers (Sheba, Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish with the young
lions) issue the question "have you come to take a spoil?" implying that
they have a right to issue this challenge. It may be that the softening of relationships
that we are currently witnessing between these nations, will account for the mild nature
of their concern regarding the invasion. The use of the word "come"
certainly points to some form of Western presence or influence in Israel. There is
however, no indication in scripture that any action is taken. The outcome of this invasion
does not therefore depend upon human efforts. God will use this opportunity to show the
world that "He is the Lord". We pray that Christ will return soon that
these events may unfold.
George Rayner