Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met with U.S. President George W. Bush in mid-April to discuss the ever-pressing issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations, but he had an even more pressing issue on his mind: The progress of Iran's nuclear program. Israel's military secretary, Major General Yaov Galant, showed the American president satellite photos of Iranian nuclear sites and briefed him on the latest Israeli intelligence about Iran's ability to enrich uranium.

Prime Minister Sharon told the press after his private meeting with President Bush that Israel believed Iran was very close to working out the remaining technical difficulties keeping it from its goal. He hinted that Iran could be within months of solving the problems and reaching what Sharon called "the point of no return," that is, the point after which there would be no practical way to stop it from joining the nuclear club.

He declared in an exclusive interview with The New York Post that he would push Washington to place Iran at the top of its "to do list" once the United States is no longer preoccupied with Iraq. Israel, he said, considers Iran its top threat now that Saddam Hussein is gone, but he warned that a nuclear Iran is also a real threat to the greater Middle East and even to Europe.

President Bush believes the same, but the United States is willing, for the time being, to take a back seat to diplomatic efforts by what's being called the EU3—Britain, France and Germany. Perhaps the Bush administration sees this as a good way to mend diplomatic fences that were flattened in its taking the lead in the Iraq action.

On his recent European trip, the president discussed a common strategy toward the Iranian problem with EU leaders. America is happy to have Europe take the lead this time, using its better standing with the Islamic government to convince it to stop its nuclear program. The EU3 initially agreed with the United States that the international community must steer Iran away from producing enriched uranium.

For its part, Iran argues assertively that what it does regarding nuclear development is entirely its private business, maintaining all along that it intends only to generate electricity through nuclear power. It doesn't explain why a nation with over 10 percent of the world's oil reserves needs to develop an alternative power supply. The reality that makes it next to impossible to simply take their word for it is the fact that the paths to nuclear power generation and to nuclear weaponry are identical.

A French fly in the ointment

But the unity between the United States and the EU may be fracturing, due to the French. The online version of The Tehran Times claimed on April 18, "There is a new approach among most European countries that Iran has an inalienable right to make peaceful use of nuclear technology," quoting foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi.

Asefi was overstating the case in claiming "most European countries" felt that way—only one European voice is supporting its cause. French President Jacques Chirac is lobbying the others to allow Iran to have an enrichment plant with 3,000 centrifuges. Because the enriched uranium that it needs to generate electricity would also most probably go into the production of nuclear weapons, Chirac is putting his assessment in realistic terms: Such a plant would provide Iran with enough enriched uranium to manufacture one nuclear bomb per year.

It's not clear what the United States would do if that becomes the official EU3 position. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Wall Street Journal on April 14 that the United States would give Europe "a few more months" to rein in Iran's nuclear program, "before taking tougher measures." Neither the U.S. president nor any of his cabinet is offering any explanation as to what those tougher measures might be.

President Bush bluntly denounced Iran's continuing sponsorship of terror in his State of the Union address, encouraging Iranians to "stand for liberty," a not-so-subtle encouragement to revolutionary elements within Iran. Understandably, U.S. concerns include the possibility that Iran might hand terrorists material they need to construct a "dirty bomb," a conventional explosive device that disperses radioactive material.

The Bush administration declares the right to take military action if necessary. It appears to want to keep the Iranians off guard by vague comments from its officials that there are no plans to attack Iran, but at the same time warning, "all options are on the table."

For a while, it seemed that Israel might act as the U.S. surrogate, taking out any Iranian nuclear reactor before it "goes hot," as it did in Iraq, bombing that country's Osirak reactor in 1981. Despite Vice President Cheney's open speculation as recently as January that the Israelis might act similarly with Iran, Prime Minister Sharon put that idea to rest during his April visit to Washington. He said that Israel believes a coalition of the world's democracies should pressure Iran away from the capacity to go nuclear.

Sharon could also simply be acknowledging the reality that Iran has buried its reactor so deep as to make it invulnerable to the bunker-buster bombs that Israel has in its arsenal.

Is there any reasonable hope that the mullahs could be overthrown by those who, in President Bush's words, "stand for liberty"? It's only remotely possible, and not through democratic means. Iran's Council of Guardians, a 12-man group of conservative clerics with authority over the parliament and the president, has virtually quashed any active presence of reformists in government. President Khatami is only a lame duck. (See the World News and Prophecy article on this subject from the July 2004 issue.)

Would the United States intervene militarily to prevent Iran from being able to produce nuclear weapons? No one knows with certainty, but it seems doubtful. Would Americans back him if President Bush declared the need to go to war in Iran? He would have a hard sell without clear and irrefutable proof that it was necessary to do so.

But he has sternly warned that the United States will never allow Iran to go nuclear. It sounds like he is drawing another line in the sands of the Middle East.

It's about oil

Iran has countered that threat in this high-stakes game by warning that it would retaliate against the West by closing the Strait of Hormuz, which it controls and through which a staggering 40 percent of the world's crude oil flows. This would send an economic tsunami around the world. Of course, it would also cut off Iran's main source of revenue.

In what could be a related development, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this April paid his third visit to Azerbaijan in the past 15 months. Although the United States stated no reason for the visit, the Azerbaijani presidential spokesman said Rumsfeld came "to hold new discussions on the principles of cooperation between Azerbaijan and the USA in the sphere of security and [to] solve problems present in this sphere" (Alman Talyshli, "Rumsfeld's Baku Trip Stirs Controversy," Eurasia Insight, April 13, 2005).

Since Azerbaijan borders Iran (to the north), "problems in this sphere" could certainly mean the looming showdown between the United States and Iran. There are other reasons for U.S.-Azerbaijani cooperation, even to the point of the United States establishing a base in the country. The Caspian Sea, which both Azerbaijan and Iran border (along with Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan), has become a free-for-all highway for drug trafficking and illegal weapons shipments. The U.S. Armed Forces Information Service, reporting on an earlier Rumsfeld visit to the region, said the Caspian Sea was like a country without any laws or controls.

Another reason for American interest is the oil and natural gas in the region. Although estimates vary, hydrocarbon reserves under the Caspian Sea are enough to take the edge off American dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Conservative estimates project that by 2010, Caspian Sea production will exceed the output of Venezuela, South America's second largest oil producer ("EIA Country Analysis Brief, Caspian Sea Region").

But a U.S. base in the region, just north of Iran, would send an unmistakable message to the Iranian mullahs: We can make you stop uranium enrichment if we have to do so.

Cannot simply ignore the threat

Concurrent with its work on a nuclear reactor, Iran's aerospace industry has been perfecting a missile that could deliver payloads throughout the Middle East and beyond. Their principal weapon is the Shahab-3 ("Shahab" means "shooting star" in Farsi; some spell it "Shihab"). As recently as a year ago, the threat from this highly inaccurate "flying aluminum tube" was minimal. Even if it could target a general location in Iraq or Israel, it would have to hit an entire city in the hopes of striking a military target. The political ramifications of destroying a large population center made its use unlikely.

But American GPS (Global Positioning System) technology sold under approval of the Clinton administration to the Chinese Air Force in the mid-1990s "found its way" to Iran and is now guiding their ICBMs with a high degree of accuracy. Additionally, Iran has benefited significantly from North Korean know-how, both in nuclear and missile technology. Iranian missiles could conceivably strike Israeli military bases or American ones in Iraq, Qatar and elsewhere in the region. Their longest-range weapons are now capable of hitting targets in London and throughout Europe.

Iran was a considerable strategic threat before, when its only weapon was its oil production and its control of the Persian Gulf sea-lanes through the Strait of Hormuz. Now, however, on the brink of going nuclear and having a workable delivery system, Iran is truly a threat to the world and an ally of China and North Korea.

Hence, Mr. Sharon's warning that the stakes of what used to be mostly an Israeli security issue are about to be raised to a concern for all of the Middle East and Europe. Clearly, that means a worldwide security issue.

Dangerous times—the prophetic view

The apostle Paul wrote, "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come" (2 Timothy 3:1). That is clearly the state of the world today. Dedicated statesmen from most nations are working feverishly to prevent an unexpected provocation from igniting a global nuclear conflict.

But at some point a worldwide conflict will be ignited. Jesus Christ warned that just before His second coming "there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again" (Matthew 24:21, New International Version). So destructive will that conflict be that He said, "If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened" (verse 22; compare Daniel 12:1-3). WNP