Matt Ward

The Time of Antichrist’s Debut Advances :: By Matt Ward

Published on: by RR7

“The EU must strengthen its representation and defend its interests better. For this purpose France proposes the creation of a high level representative appointed by the Council for three to five years, who would provide Europe with a face and a voice.” —Former French President Jacques Chirac, Liberation, 1996

The French view was and is that “all means” should be used to “strengthen that high representative.” (Instituto Affari Internazional, 1996; page 46)

Events today are moving at quite some pace. Almost twenty years ago I wrote a university thesis titled, “What are the prospects of the European Union developing a coherent Common Foreign and Security Policy into the new millennia?”It was indeed an eye-opener.

In that thesis I discussed the prospects of the European Union reaching such a point of political integration that it would develop a single, functional Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). I was examining the possibility that the EU might in the future develop a unified European army.

That was in 1999, and my conclusions could have been summed up succinctly in just four words: it will never happen.

At the time the reasons for this were complicated. First, it was inconceivable that Britain or France would allow their own soldiers to fight and die in a war fought entirely over an obscure piece of land that was totally unrelated to their own national interests. Yet that is what a unified European army may have meant.

As an example of this, consider Greece in 1999. Owing to its border problems with Turkey, Greece had asked the EU at that time to specifically guarantee its external national borders against Turkish aggression. As a part of this, Greece asked the EU for future mutual assistance (should Turkey at any point infringe its sovereign territory).

In 1999, the chances of the British government allowing its men and women to go to war with another sovereign nation like Turkey, essentially because of a dispute arising out of the ownership rights to a far flung, irrelevant and strategically unimportant Greek Island—were nil.

Equally unlikely in 1999, was the very real prospect under a unified European army, that Britain or especially France, would allow their forces to be led by a commanding officer from Germany; senior German officers commanding entire French army units and men.

Although membership of NATO at that time did inevitably mean devolved military leadership to other nations, with German officers commanding French troops. For example, the command and control structures of an EU army would have be fundamentally different in one key regard; within NATO, the UK and the USA were always in guaranteed overall leadership positions, which would not automatically be the case in a combined EU army.

Although at this time both countries are on very friendly terms, the memory of past wars between the two meant that German officers commanding French troops was unthinkable to France—or Britain in 1999. But that was in 1999, and that was before Brexit and Donald Trump.

The shock waves caused by Brexit on the European continent continue to be huge. Equally, the election of Donald Trump has had immense global ramifications, especially in Europe. The global dynamic has clearly shifted, leaving a whole new paradigm forming before our eyes; something that European leaders are keenly aware of.

Brexit and Donald Trump’s election success is provoking enormous and rapid prophetic development. I think it no over exaggeration to say that the changes sparked by Brexit and then by Trump’s assumption to high office are currently setting the stage for the emergence of the Antichrist himself. I believe the two events are that significant.

In 1996, at a European Intergovernmental Conference held specifically to address the subject of integrating European foreign policy, all member states present agreed to the creation of a new role within the upper leadership apparatus of the EU— a Mr. or Ms. CFSP. A man or woman who alone would be responsible for the foreign and security policies of the European Union. This individual would hold in his or her hands the combined might of Europe’s unified future defense structures. [1]

This man or woman would wield immense power. France, at the time along with other core EU nations, clearly and publically urged the creation of such a post. Britain, however, vehemently opposed it, jealous to guard its own foreign policy and military sovereignty.

So although the post of a  leader of the CFSP, that singular individual in whom all foreign policy and, upon the creation of an EU army, military power would also rest was passed, it was also quietly shelved. Until now.

When Britain voted to leave the European Union in Brexit and Donald Trump assumed the presidency of the United States of America, everything started to change.

Now, in 2017, alliances are being tested within Europe and core perceptions about U.S. and British security commitments to the EU are being challenged in a way we have never seen before.

The Europeans are rattled. Brexit has served only to exacerbate this and played on the whispered fears most European leaders have that they are going to be left all alone to fend for themselves militarily. Many leaders in Europe, though they would scarcely admit it publically, fear for the future viability of NATO, especially under Donald Trump. [2]

Although there has traditionally been a reluctance on the part of EU member states to engage in the types of deep integration required by a common foreign and security policy, and especially that required by a European army—that is now changing. Brexit and Donald Trump, as well as the mass migration into Europe which is breaking down and destroying the fabric which holds European society together, is forcing many EU member states to recognize the great benefits increased integration will bring them.

The perceived diminishment of NATO as a security guarantor for Europe against the ever present Russian threat has only exacerbated this. The calls for developing a European army are not whispered anymore, they are being shouted from the rooftops. Jean-Claude Junker, president of the European Commission tweeted from his official Twitter account on May 20th, 2014 the following:

“In the very long run, we will need a European army. Because we have to be credible when it comes to foreign policy #wahlarena #withJunker.”

In the wake of Brexit and Donald Trump it would seem that “in the very long run,” actually means “now.”

Speaking to a German newspaper just a few days ago on March 8, 2017, Junker said this to a reporter: “…the European Union needs its own army to face up to Russia and other threats, as well as to restore the Bloc’s standing around the world.” [3]

Again, on March 8th, Junker went further this time as published in the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag: “A joint EU army would show the world that there would never again be a war between European countries. Such an army would also help us to form common foreign and security policies and allow Europe to take on responsibility in the world.”

Junker believes that a common EU army would also serve as a deterrent to Russia. He stated:

With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or neighboring state. One wouldn’t have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.” [4]

Critically, Junkers views are echoed by senior ministers in the German government. German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, told German radio last week that, “Our future as Europeans will at some point be with a European army.”

This is a view backed up by increasing numbers within Germany, too. In an opinion poll conducted by Forsa for German news magazine Stern published, 49 percent of the more than 1,000 people surveyed said they were in favor of creating a European army while 46 percent were against it. [5]

This is according to German newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung:

In the wake of the British referendum to leave the European Union, Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande have decided to demonstrate the EU’s strength and to push the remaining member states to show more unity. Especially in defence policy, many projects were put on hold because Britain vetoed them. Without London, the two EU founding states, France and Germany, hope for swift decisions.

The EU already has battle groups, manned on a rotational basis, which are meant to be available as a rapid reaction force, it would seem that these are no longer enough. The main players in the EU want an army, and they want that army to be equipped with more than conventional weapons too. They want nuclear weapons.

For decades, the final line of defense for Europe against possible Russian aggression has been provided by the American nuclear arsenal. But since Donald Trump’s election as the 45th president of the United States, officials in Berlin and Brussels are no longer certain that Washington will continue to hold a protective hand over Europe.

An essay in the November issue of Foreign Affairs argues that if Trump seriously questions the American guarantees, Berlin will have to consider establishing a European nuclear deterrent on the basis of the French and British capabilities.

Their final strategic aim seems to be nothing short of the full weaponization of the European Union. To this end, Roderich Kiesewetter, a foreign-policy expert in the Christian Democratic Union—the party of Chancellor Angela Merkel  and a high-ranking member of the Bundestag, has now openly expressed what many leaders in Germany and Europe are privately thinking:

“…if the United States no longer wants to provide this [nuclear] guarantee, Europe still needs nuclear protection for deterrent purposes. Europe must start planning for its own security in case the Americans sharply raise the cost of defending the continent, or if they decide to leave completely.” [6]

All this has dramatic implications for end time Bible prophecy. Many Bible prophecy experts believe that the Antichrist will one day soon emerge from within Europe. I agree with them. Europe will be the Antichrist’s initial seat of power and his primary power base. The great paradox though is that the EU’s economic might is in no way matched by its military capabilities. The EU is militarily impotent.

This presents us with an eschatological problem. If the Antichrist, this final world dictator, rises from within Europe, and uses this European base to project himself upon the world stage, in the process subduing other nations as the Bible predicts, this cannot happen as Europe exists today. That military powerbase does not yet exist.

But Brexit, Donald Trump and mass European migration is provoking huge change in Europe, resulting in the rapid formation of completely new power structures within the EU, ones which will come sharply into focus during the Tribulation period itself.

The European military powerbase which it seems the Bible predicts the Antichrist will rise from, is forming before our eyes right now. The will now exists for the creation of a European army, and the momentum is growing. The individual leadership position of a Mr. or Ms. CFSP is being brought down off the shelf and prepared for one very special individual, in whom will rest vast political, foreign policy and military power.

As Jacques Chirac said in 1996, one unique individual “…who would provide Europe with a face and a voice?”

European People’s Party (EPP) president Joseph Daul sums up the situation best in his comments reported by London’s  Express newspaper, “We are going to move towards an EU army much faster than people believe.” [7]

With this power, this man will embark on extraordinary conquest, so brutal that Daniel speaks plainly of its aftermath, “He shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people” (Daniel 8:24).

Everything before him will be swept away, so that ultimately—all the world will proclaim, “Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” (Rev. 13:4).

He will literally “shake kingdoms” and “make the earth to tremble” (Isaiah 14:16).

Daniel says in Dan.12:8-13 that the prophetic “…words are sealed until the end of time.”

Many people, including myself, now believe these “words” are being progressively and rapidly unsealed, meaning that with each passing day and month the revealing of the Antichrist, and the mechanics of how this will occur, are becoming increasingly clear to all who are waiting and watching.

“And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed” (Romans 13:11).

Endnotes

[1] Foreign and Security Policy in the European Union, edited by Kjell A Eliassen

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/18/trump-pence-eu-nato-munich-conference-germany-britain

[3] http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/meps-call-eu-countries-to-boost-defence-cooperation-in-times-of-external-crises/

[4] https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8935/european-army

[5] http://uk.reuters.com/article/eu-defence-germany-poll-idUKKBN0ME0SS20150318

[6] http://carnegieendowment.org/2016/12/06/sudden-german-nuke-flirtation-pub-66366

[7] http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/612710/European-leaders-EU-ARMY-close-to-reality-Juncker

wardmatt1977@gmail.com

 

 

Operation Millennium Challenge :: By Matt Ward

Published on: by RR7

The global pieces continue to shift, moving inexorably towards their predetermined prophetic end time places. The election of President Donald Trump is provoking rapid change and causing hasty national realignments, especially in the field of international relations.

President Donald Trump is proving to be a mighty catalyst for change; relationships are being reset across to globe. Nation states that have for so long taken for granted their dependence upon the United States are now reassessing their positions. Equally, other nations that had relied upon the inactivity of America—even in the face of overt provocation, especially during the Obama years, are coming to terms with an entirely new reality in 2017.

Iran so easily outmanoeuvred and manipulated the former Obama Administration, are finding that the belligerence and harsh rhetoric that worked so well to subdue Barack Obama and John Kerry, holds no sway whatsoever with Donald Trump, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis.

Iran is coming to terms with the fact that it doesn’t matter how loud they shout anymore, nobody is listening, and certainly nobody is intimidated. In spite of this, and in direct defiance of a whole raft of UN and U.S. nuclear accords, Iran continues to openly and very aggressively test their burgeoning ballistic missile technology, all the while continuing in their vile rhetoric toward Israel and the “Great Satan”—America.

To this end National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been specific; Iran are officially “on notice.” Trump has gone even further, stating plainly that Iran are “playing with fire.”

A clear read line has been put down by Trump and his administration regarding Iran. Unlike Obama, who allowed his own red lines to be constantly and very publically transgressed for  eight long years, Trump and his administration will likely prove to be as good as their word.

Iran’s immediate response was to dismiss Trump as a ranting extremist, and “vigorously” reaffirmed their commitment to increased future ballistic missile testing and development. They proved as good as their word the very next day, testing another ballistic missile in direct breach of signed accords and in defiance of the Trump personally.

Confrontation lays ahead. This path may well lead to war between Iran and the United States and this brings dangers, not just for the United States of America but for the entire world, the Middle East and Israel specifically.

In 2002, unknown to many outside military circles, the Pentagon and the U.S. Military war-gamed just such a war with Iran. The war game was code named “Operation Millennium Challenge.” It has gone down in infamy as a lesson in how not to fight a rogue, terrorist nation (much like Iran) if you are a large superpower with heavy fixed military assets, like aircraft carrier battle groups.

Operation Millennium Challenge was an utter failure. Running between July 24th and August 15th 2002, at a cost of over $250 million, Operation Millennium Challenge pitted one nation state referred to as “Blue,” which was the United States, against another rogue Middle Eastern nation, “Red.”

“Red” wasn’t a fictionalized Middle Eastern nation though, in the war game “Red,” in real terms represented Iran. The United States was war gaming a confrontation with Iran that had turned “hot.”

Red, or Iran, was commanded by legendary US Marine Corps General, Paul K. Van Riper, a recipient of two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star, a Legion of Merit and a Purple Heart. From the beginning, as commander of Iran, Riper put the United States on the back foot. Even though the U.S. were able to bring to bear much more powerful and sophisticated military assets than the Iranians could ever hope to, General Riper was able to assume a momentum early in this war game that the United States simple could not pull back.

Unbelievably, and quite shockingly, Iran comprehensively defeated the technologically superior and hugely more powerful United States of America, in the first running of Millennium Challenge. Such a result caused widespread shock and disbelief in the U.S. corridors of power. U.S. war planners were horrified.

Former Marine General Ryan, assumed commander of Iran, achieved this relatively easy victory against a vastly superior U.S. force by employing old fashioned World War II era, asymmetrical tactics. To counter the vast technological superiority of the U.S. military machine, General Ryan used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to the front line and World War Two era light signals to launch his aircraft, therefore eliminating the need to use intercept-able modern telecommunications to control his forces. This nullified much of the U.S.’ technological superiority. The U.S. had no idea the Iranians were coming.

Augmenting this early advantage, General Ryan went onto the offensive against the United States from the very beginning, to devastating effect. Early in the war game Iran received a written surrender demand from the United States of America. Ryan used this pre-warning of a US attack as the trigger to launch a full scale pre-emptive strike against U.S. maritime assets in the Persian Gulf. The attack caught U.S. forces completely off guard.

Using a fleet of small boats to determine the location of the U.S. fleet, Iran then preemptively launched a massive barrage of land based cruise missiles at the approaching U.S. fleet, completely overwhelming the U.S. fleets electronic sensor and missile interception systems. The results of this attack were beyond devastating.

Iran were able to destroy sixteen U.S. warships, including one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five out of six amphibious ships. Translated into real life, such an attack would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 US service personal in one attack.

At this point the war game was suspended, whilst “Blue” or the United States’ military planners simply “re-floated” all their sunken ships. The U.S. military planners were so horrified by the outcome that they just ignored the result, reset the U.S. board and pretended that the mass sinking of much of an entire U.S. fleet never happened. To make matters worse, the military planners then changed the rules of engagement for Iran; the participants were forced to follow         a script that would ensure the victory of Blue over Red.

U.S. military planners cheated because they had been so overwhelmingly defeated. When Operation Millennium Challenge recommenced, Iran were ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar so that Blue US forces could then destroy it, and were completely forbidden from shooting down any aircraft bringing U.S. troops ashore. Riper later claimed that he was even ordered to reveal the location of certain Red assets to Blue, and was forbidden from using certain specific types of tactics and ideas against Blue, as well as being restricted in the types of weaponry he could employ.

The war game became a farce because the US military found that they had no way to defeat Iran without also incurring terrible loses of their own. This was because any war with Iran would initially be a sea war in the Persian Gulf, not a land based war as Iraq was.

Millennium Challenge highlighted the key strategic issues involved in America fighting a rogue nation like Iran; their unpredictability and their readiness to use unconventional tactics preemptively against a vastly superior US force.

Iran effectively used the US Navy’s biggest assets against them; vast and huge naval flotillas. Though the US Navy today does enjoy absolute naval supremacy, it is only out on the open seas. US aircraft carriers rely on defensive systems that detect incoming threats whilst they are still over the horizon, whilst the threat is still a considerable distance away. Preferably hundreds of miles away.

Following detection of any threat sophisticated counter measures, the Aegis anti-missile system, kick in to engage and destroy all incoming threats, whilst they are still some distance away from the carrier group. For this system to work any US carrier group requires significant amounts of clear space all around in which to detect the incoming attack.

In an environment like the Persian Gulf or the Straits of Hormuz, hugely busy sea lanes that are only twenty miles wide in some places, there simply is not the space required for US systems to detect and counter incoming missile attacks. Their electronic defensive systems become all but useless.

The layered defense operated by a carrier strike group does not have enough space and therefore time to work properly in an environment like the Persian Gulf, so they become exceptionally vulnerable to attack.

Traditionally, the threat of a full carrier-strike group anchoring offshore has always been a cornerstone of U.S. deterrence. The sinking of a U.S. aircraft carrier would likely be the defining moment when the era of perceived U.S. global military dominance would come to an end. Any such event, and then no doubt magnified by 24 hour news coverage, would almost immediately alter the entire global balance of power. In the wake of such an attack American security assurances would not carry anywhere near the kind of weight as before, especially with a carrier sitting at the bottom of the sea.

In such a reality, it would then be open season on countries like Israel because the veneer of American military dominance would have been comprehensively shattered.

It is naive to assume, as so many do, that nations like Iran, or China for that matter, are not preparing for this kind of eventuality. It is clear that Iran and China are both intent on carving out for themselves spheres of influence in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.

The United States, especially now that Donald Trump has become president stands directly in their way. Every indication coming out of Iran is that they know a confrontation may be coming, and they are readying themselves for it. Equally China are readying their military for an inevitable confrontation with America over the hotly disputed South China Seas.

Soon a man will emerge who will seemingly hold the answers to all the problems afflicting this world. His emergence will foreshadow the beginning of the Tribulation period itself. By the time of his eventual appearance chaos will have ensued, and American military dominance will have been over turned, either subjugated or gone forever. My personal belief is that this will come about as a direct consequence of the rapture of the Church. However, I am also mindful of how very easily in our modern age it could happen because of just one stray cruise missile.

In late January, just over a week ago, the US air craft carrier George H. W. Bush and its supporting strike group, deployed for the Middle East supposedly to assist in the war against terror. It is more likely and realistically on a direct collision course with Iran in the Persian Gulf.

It is no exaggeration to say that in such an approaching confrontation the future of U.S. global military dominance could be at stake. Sink just one aircraft carrier and the world in which we live will be a completely different place the very next morning.

Sources:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/millennium-challenge.htm

http://cimsec.org/learning-curve-iranian-asymmetrical-warfare-millennium-challenge-2002-2/11640

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

wardmatt1977@gmail.com