World War III Scenarios

According to David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries:

President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order #11647 on February 14, 1972, which reorganized the United States into 10 federal regions... The unconstitutional goal of this reorganization into 10 super regions is to set the stage for the abolishment of governments from the federal, to the state, to the county, and even to the local, levels. The objective is to set in place the form of government that could be implemented during a planned crisis, that would effectively strip us of our elected representational form of government. Suddenly, we would find ourselves being governed by officials who are not elected, nor responsible to any voters.

This regional system is apparently unlimited in its scope and powers. Thus, Americans could very well discover that they are back under the control of the type of government that our Founding Fathers spent their lives and fortunes overthrowing! Worse still, we could find ourselves facing the type of dictator which we have seen ruling Russia and Nazi Germany.

This regional system is also apparently a military structure. We will see this more clearly when the federal program called "General and Complete Disarmament" (Public Law 87-297) is fully integrated according to this 10-region system of government. We also will probably not see this 10-region system implemented until we are under the simultaneous crises of which we have spoken many times.

When America is under the following planned crises, we will witness this changeover to this 10-region system, most likely with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) exercising initial control. These are apparently the crises that are planned:

1. All-out nuclear warfare in the Middle East (or neutron warfare).
2. All-out nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula (or at least the threat of such a war).
3. Arab terrorists threatening to devastate American cities with atomic, chemical or biological weapons (or actually carrying out this threat).
4. Total oil embargo from the Arab nations in support of Arab forces fighting Israel in the Middle East.
5. Earthquakes deliberately caused to create panic.
6. Simultaneous riots in many American cities to further cause panic.
7. American Presidency weakened because of scandal and infighting with Congress and the Courts to further cause panic among American voters.
8. The Stock Market will crash, causing absolute panic amongst all Americans. Jobs will immediately begin to be lost, thus further adding to the panic.

Antichrist is supposed to appear at the end of the Middle East crisis. If this occurs, then "aliens" and visible "angels" are to appear to urge all peoples of the world to support him and his plan.

At this moment, the head of FEMA will suddenly appear, announcing that he is taking "temporary" control, and quoting all the various Executive Orders and laws passed by Congress giving him all the authority he needs to assume the powers of government, of all branches of our former Constitutional government.

Once this changeover to the new 10-region system of government occurs, amidst all these contrived and planned crises, you may rest assured the End of the Age is upon us.

Club of Rome's 10 Regions and the 10 Kings of Daniel and Revelation - The "10 horns" are explained in Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 17:12 to be 10 kings, and the whole vision is of the last form of Gentile world-power, a confederated 10-kingdom empire, most likely covering the whole earth. Now it's interesting to note that, in 1972, the Club of Rome proposed a plan to divide the whole world into 10 regions. Could these 10 regions be the 10 horns of the Bible? - his2ndcoming

The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them (Revelation 17:12-14).

And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 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 17:16-17).

And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army (Revelation 19:19).

Once the 10 Nations Have Arisen, Antichrist Will Appear - In 1957, Alice Bailey, then the leader of the House of Theosophy, wrote in her collection of writings, "The Externalisation of the Hierarchy," that the world must first be reorganized into "spheres of influence" before it could be organized into a global government (page 209). She made it very clear that this reorganization would not follow traditional national boundaries, but would be a completely different organization. Bailey did not specify how many "spheres of influence" would be created, but her plan was fleshed out in 1974 by New World Order authors, Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel, in a book entitled, "Mankind At The Turning Point." They wrote that the world would be reorganized into 10 Super Nation States, listed below. - David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries

(1) North America
(2) Western Europe
(3) Japan
(4) Australia, South Africa, and the rest of the market-economy of the developed world
(5) Eastern Europe, including Russia
(6) Latin America
(7) North Africa and the Middle East
(8) Tropical Africa
(9) South and Southeast Asia
(10) China

Cold War Era 10-Region Map (Mexico Not Included in the North American Union)

The 'Little Horn' (Antichrist) Rises Up AFTER the Ten Kings Come to Power - So let us remember the basics here: the man of sin, little horn or antichrist, rises out of a system of 10 kings. The system of 10 kings is controlled by the harlot, Babylon, and the entire system is given its power by the dragon, Satan. Many people get a little too hung up on if it is a 'Masonic conspiracy' or a 'Jesuit conspiracy' or a 'globalist conspiracy.' They are all the same conspiracy. It is part of a Satanic conspiracy to control the globe for the prince of darkness. God has given us a witness as to the final form the system will take: 10 kings ruled by a harlot controlled by the devil. That system is not fully here yet, but true, born-again Christians who are awake and are not sleeping can and are seeing this system coming into being. It is not far off. - Mark S. Watson, September 18, 2003

I will tell thee mystery of the woman,
And of the beast that carrieth her,
Which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not;
And shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:
And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder,
Whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,
When they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

And here is the mind which hath wisdom.
The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come;
And when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth,
And is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings,
Which have received no kingdom as yet;
But receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them:
For He is Lord of lords, and King of kings:
And they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

And he saith unto me,
The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth,
Are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore,
And shall make her desolate and naked,
And shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil His will,
And to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast,
Until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

And the woman which thou sawest is that great city,
Which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Revelation 17:7-18

The Middle East crisis will lead to World War III. Antichrist will appear at the end of WWIII to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. A one-world government with a one-world religion will be established, the anti-Christian kingdom prophesied in chapter 13 of the book of Revelation. This one-world power will offer apparent peace and prosperity to a world in chaos. The devil, Satan, will rule over his earthly kingdom for "a little season," so that he as God will stand in the holy place, showing himself that he is God, and he will deceive many with his signs and wonders.

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them. - 1st Thessalonians 5:3

The goal of the New Jerusalem Covenant Project is to create the plan by which Antichrist can solve the Middle East crisis; Antichrist will use this crisis to stage his appearance in the world. Antichrist is supposed to appear at the end of the Middle East crisis (World War III). The prophetic reality of Daniel 9:24-27, Matthew 24:15 and Revelation 11:1-12 is that the new Temple will be built after World War III and will produce the Man of Sin. Thus, the Illuminati plans to destroy the Dome of the Rock during the World War III fighting so that their Antichrist can rebuild Solomon's Temple. This reality means that Arabs will retain control over the Temple Mount until the moment Antichrist comes to the world scene and seizes it for the Jews so his temple can be created. "Peace and safety" will be heralded, and the leaders of the major nations will be busily taking credit for their "brilliant" leadership that seemingly finally solved the deeply engrained religious strife in and around Jerusalem that has plagued mankind for the past 1,400 years.- David Bay, Cutting Edge Ministries

The Sixth Seal, the Seven Trumpets, and the Return of Christ

At the opening of the sixth seal, cosmic disturbances will come upon the earth (great earthquake, sun turns black, moon turns blood red, stars fall to earth, sky rolls up like a scroll, every mountain and island moves), which will be followed by silence in heaven for about 1/2 hour before the seventh seal is opened.

The seventh seal in the Book of Revelation reveals itself as the seven trumpets, described as "the wrath of the Lamb." The first four trumpets will bring destruction upon the earth (1/3 of trees burned up, all green grass burned, 1/3 of sea turns to blood, 1/3 of sea creatures die, 1/3 of ships destroyed, 1/3 of waters poisoned, 1/3 of sun and moon and stars darkened).

When the fifth trumpet is sounded, Satan will be released from the bottomless pit to rule over his earthly kingdom (his one-world government and religion). He will stand in the holy place claiming to be God, and he will promise peace and security to a world in desperate need of grand solutions to profound problems. Satan, deceiving many with his signs and wonders, will reign as king over this earth for five months, during which time (the sixth trumpet) 1/3 part of man will be killed (most likely Christians and others who refuse to worship "the beast" and to receive his "mark" in their right hand or forehead).

After this earthly reign by Satan for "a little season" and his persecution of the followers of Christ, Christ will return in the clouds of heaven with great power and glory (the seventh trumpet) to deliver up His people to the kingdom of heaven. He then will destroy by fire the kingdom of "the beast" and create a new heaven and a new earth over which He will reign with His people for eternity.

"And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, 'It is my people:' and they shall say, The Lord is my God." (Zechariah 13:9)

According to The Green Agenda:

You don’t need to look in the shadows for the coming world government: it is standing right before your eyes. When they bring “order out of chaos,” the United Nations will be transformed and the final global empire will be born. So what events could possibly bring about the conditions that would allow the emergence of a one world government? I will briefly describe what I consider to be the most likely scenario:

Ezekiel 38 and 39 describe an attack on Israel by a coalition of Islamic nations and Russia. It seems that this conflict also involves other parts of the globe. The invading forces are completely destroyed by God’s divine intervention. The military power of Russia is annihilated, and Islam, which promised its believers a final ultimate victory, is shattered.

The world economy lies in total ruin. Significant areas of the planet are devastated. People everywhere are distraught and in despair. Emergency meetings are held at the United Nations where the blueprints for a new global system are presented and quickly adopted.

“We need a new beginning” they will say; “We all must change and renounce our old destructive ways.” Amazingly everything is already in place. The Earth Charter would be endorsed as a Planetary Constitution and the Security Council replaced with some new 'United Earth Council.' The world would be divided into 10 administrative regions with each one represented by an Earth Councillor.

The blame for the recent conflict, and many of the world's other problems, would be placed firmly on traditional religions. They would be swiftly outlawed and replaced by reverence for the earth itself. “We nearly destroyed Gaia!” they would say, “We nearly destroyed our own Mother!”

Over the last decade, the United Nations has brazenly been reinventing itself into a global government, striving to obtain the legal framework, financial resources, and grassroots support to implement its policies. As outlined in my preceding articles, it has effectively seized legal and regulatory control in many countries, through Agenda 21, and developed a Constitution, the Earth Charter, for its vision on a transformed global interdependent society.

In 1992 the UN formed a Commission on Global Governance charged with devising a system of future global management. Second in charge of the Commission, and lead author of its report, was Maurice Strong, with whom readers will be quite familiar by now. After several years of “extension consultation” with “world leaders, philosophers and futurologists,” the Commission produced a report entitled Our Global Neighbourhood...

One of the primary thrusts of 'Our Global Neighbourhood' was the formation of “regional blocs or unions to enhance political, economic and environmental security.” The report proposed that “Regional Neighbourhoods” be established, modelled closely on the successful example of the European Union.

Recent years have seen a large number of such regional unions emerging, or being strengthened, including the African Union, the Mediterranean Neighbourhood Partnership, the Gulf States Coalition, and the proposed North American Union.

The report also recommended a gradual reduction in the sovereignty of independent states, arguing strongly in favour of international “courts of accountability,” binding global agreements, and significantly enhancing the legal authority of the UN. Dr Robert Muller, Assistant Secretary-General of the UN and co-founder of UNESCO, clearly describes this UN plan for a new 'World Union:'

In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government... There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems—if systems they are—are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways. The less we loose time, the less species' and nature will be destroyed.

Since the United Nations is the only worldwide, universal organization that is presently available, since it had fifty years of valuable experience and many successes, and since it paved the way to proper Earth government (instead of putting it on the defensive, unjustified attacks and criticism, reduction of resources and non-payment of obligatory contributions) governments should honestly ask themselves if a better way would not be to consider a second generation United Nations upgraded by a true quantum jump into a proper Earth-preserving and human-well-being and justice-ensuring organization of our planet.

The continental approach to a world union remains an important avenue. One could conceive five continental unions: the European Union, an American, an African, an Asian, and an Australian Union. A World Union could be constructed as a super-structure and common political, economic and environmental instrument to achieve these objectives. - The Earth Charter in Action

This strategy appears to be based on the Club of Rome's proposal to divide the earth into 10 administrative regions, which they outlined in their report Mankind at the Turning Point. You can find their original map in my previous article on that topic. Interestingly, the UN is currently in the process of reviewing and reforming the organization, with particular emphasis on the Security Council.

Several alternative models have been proposed which will make the Council more 'representative and democratic.' One of these, the Italian Model, proposes replacing the current 10 seats held by individual nations with 10 seats representing 'regional unions,' two seats for Europe, three for Asia, etc. You can compare the different proposals here.

'Our Global Neighbourhood' concluded with 12 key recommendations which I have listed below, and it was these that caused such a furore that the rest of the report barely received a comment. The UN claimed that the report was merely a “visioning exercise” intended to generate discussion and did not represent official UN policy goals. The report was effectively shelved and the Commission was disbanded:

1. Consolidation of all international agencies under the direct oversight of the United Nations.
2. Regulation by the United Nations of all transnational organizations and financial institutions.
3. Independent source of revenue for the United Nations, and taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels, and licensing the use of the global commons.
4. Eliminate the veto power and the permanent member status on the Security Council.
5. Authorize a United Nations ready reaction force.
6. Require United Nations registration of all arms and the reduction of national armies as a part of a multilateral global security system under the authority of the United Nations.
7. Require individual and national compliance with all United Nations Human Rights treaties.
8. Activate the International Criminal Court, make the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and give individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy social injustice.
9. Create a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring sustainable development.
10. Create a new international environmental court.
11. Adopt a declaration that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a high-level action team to allocate carbon emission based on equal per-capita rights.
12. Cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and equitable sharing of global resources as allocated by the United Nations.

One of Kofi Annan’s first actions when he became Secretary-General of the United Nations was to appoint Maurice Strong as his Senior Policy Advisor. He then tasked Strong with preparing a plan to “reform the institution of the United Nations.”

In 2002, Strong produced a 95-page document entitled Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, which was basically a step-by-step program to implement many of the recommendations of 'Our Global Neighbourhood.' Many of these reforms have been slowly working their way through UN system. However, after Maurice Strong was indicted for his involvement in the Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal, he was forced by pressure from the United States to resign from his UN roles.

The reforms Strong designed are being implemented by the UN, but they have not been the transformation that he desired. It is the opinion of this author that the current bureaucratic and unwieldy structure of the United Nations is unlikely to ever deliver the “global interdependent society” that the Earth Charter, and the Green Movement, is fervently calling for. Most members of the general population are not motivated to change by mere words in a charter, and the majority are likely to resent further intrusion into their lives.

True fundamental change is most often born out of crisis. A common creed among the Green Agenda activists has long been “order out of chaos.” They believe that people from all nations will literally beg for their New World Order if it can promise safety and security at a time when people feel under personal imminent threat.

To once again quote the famous words of David Rockefeller:

“A New World Order is coming… all we need is the right major crisis.”

And remember, it was the Rockefeller family that donated the land on which the United Nations now stands.

Thus it seems far more likely that the UN itself will be transformed, most likely after some major international crisis which the UN is unable to prevent or respond to adequately. After all, the League of Nations was born after the first truly global crisis, World War 1, and then it was “reformed” into the United Nations following World War 2. However there are some serious impediments to the implementation of the final phase of the Global Green Agenda:

1. Evangelical Christianity – True Bible-believing Christians are very likely to resist the imposition of any system of global governance, especially if it based around an earth-centred religion. Christians realise that this earth is temporary and will soon pass away. The Bible specifically warns them that humans will eventually end up “worshipping the creature instead of the Creator.” However the leaders of certain denominations seem to have no problem with the Agenda. Pope Benedict proclaimed, during Live Earth that “environmental degradation is a sin, and global warming is a defilement of the Divine Will.”
2. Islam – Moslems are also likely to fiercely resist any New World Order that mandates a form of earth-worship. There are more than one billion followers of Islam, and they show remarkably little enthusiasm for accommodating New Age eco-theology into their doctrines. Hence it is likely that the power of Islam will have to be shattered before the Global Green Agenda can be fulfilled.

3. The United States of America – The USA has long been a bastion of individual liberty and freedom. Thank God George Bush defeated Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election. If Gore had won, I have no doubt we would now be deep in the midst of the Green Reich. President Bush has bravely defended American sovereignty from the clutches of the global elitists. However this could soon change. If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected President it could well be the end of the American dream.

4. Communist China – The totalitarian Communist Party of China is very unlikely to relinquish much of its power to a new transformed United Nations. However, China is currently treading a precarious path. Its economic miracle is in fact a house of cards built on slave labour and artificially managed conditions. China is very vulnerable to an economic collapse, which could lead to a popular revolution or bankrupt the country.

5. Authoritarian Russia – Putin has established a tight authoritarian grip on Russia and is unlikely to bow willingly to a resurrected UN. However, Putin could soon be gone and a new Gorbachev could arise. Another possibility is that Russia could also once again lose its position as a global power broker through economic problems or war.

So, to quickly summarise, the activists behind the Global Green Agenda have established regulatory control in many societies through Agenda 21, they have written a Constitution for their transformed global society with the Earth Charter, and they have even described, in detail, how their new global system will operate in 'Our Global Neighbourhood.' However, several obstacles must be removed before the final phase of the Agenda, global governance based on a system of earth-worship, can be fulfilled:

• Firstly, a situation must arise where otherwise apathetic, or even hostile, members of society will beg for a new global system. They must feel so personally threatened that they will eagerly give up their personal liberty for the promise of safety and security. 'Our Global Neighbourhood' said the surrender of liberty is "a principle that will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation." In my opinion, global warming is currently being used as a conditioning tool with its fervent call for global unity to save a wounded planet.

• Secondly, certain nations and religious groups are unlikely to accept a new global system that involves the loss of national sovereignty, the loss of individual liberty, and reverence for the earth as a divine being...

As David Rockefeller stated, “all we need is the right crisis.” Everything is now in place. They are just building momentum and waiting for the storm they know is coming. You don’t need to look in the shadows for the coming world government: it is standing right before your eyes. When they bring “order out of chaos,” the United Nations will be transformed and the final global empire will be born.

Forecasting the Day After an Israeli Attack on Iran

If Israel Bombs Iran: Forecasting the Next 24 Hours

The Week
March 20, 2012

Absent total war, the day after an Israeli attack on Iran would see a flurry of conventional spycraft, cyber snooping, and frantic diplomacy

No sane person would wish for a unilateral Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities — but nor would a sane person wish for a nuclear Iran. Because of the number of potential targets in Iran, and the distance between them, a successful bombing operation would be transcendently difficult, if not impossible. But if intelligence suggested an impending, existential threat to Israel, it's easy to imagine F-15I fighter jets planting GBU-28 bunker-busters in Iranian nuclear sites from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf. And if that happens, the real question becomes, what next?

The most precious asset for diffusing World War III would be time. Diplomats would have the unenviable task of mollifying a reeling Tehran, cooling external actors, and censuring Israel — though not too much. It was, after all, no less than Saudi King Abdullah who beseeched the United States to strike first and strike hard against Iran, lest a nuclear weapon disrupt regional metastability. According to classified diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, his now famous request was to "cut off the head of the snake." Likewise, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain made the same request, to be executed "by any means necessary." The United Arab Emirates also condoned actions against Iran, provided Abu Dhabi would be involved only as a "very last resort."

SEE MORE: Did foiled nuke inspections in Iran take us 'a big step closer to war'?

Spy games and computer viruses are the best case scenario for the day after Israeli air force squadrons depart Iranian airspace.

Though regional outrage against Israel would surely be boiling over the day after a strike on Iran, many of Iran's neighbors would likely be privately pleased. They're not going to be in a rush to retaliate. They may very well make a lot of noise, but they won't immediately endorse an Iranian attack on Israel. That buys time.

SEE MORE: Are Republicans too 'casual' about war with Iran?

Of course, Iran might not wait for its neighbors' green light before launching a retaliatory strike against Israel. In that case, Israel would lean hard on its missile defense technologies. Earlier this month, the Iron Dome short-range missile defense system proved battle effective against rockets launched by militants in Gaza, with an astonishing 90 percent success rate. The type of missiles launched from Iran, however, fall under the aegis of Israel's Arrow II ballistic missile shield, which has seen action only in simulations and test-fires. We simply don't know how well Israel's Arrow II would hold up against Iranian missiles. Because a sustained, retaliatory onslaught would tax any missile defense system to the brink, it is hard to say if 90 percent is the new normal, or a best case.

An additional Iron Dome battery will be deployed near Tel Aviv next month. A third layer of missile defense, David's Sling, begins interception tests later this year. And Arrow III, which targets nuclear warheads, is still a year away from intercept testing. Depending on the speed with which these missile defense systems are deployed — and their success in the field — Israel might be able to buy extra weeks, or even months, to prevent its conflict with Iran from blowing up into a full-blown regional war.

SEE MORE: Could Iran really launch an attack on U.S. soil?

But the day after a strike on Iran, Israel won't just be playing defense and looking to soothe regional actors. Remember, Israel is believed to have one of the world's most highly advanced cyber warfare capabilities. As demonstrated in 2009 with Stuxnet — called "the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever deployed" — not even 30 feet of reinforced concrete and earth could protect the subterranean Natanz Nuclear Facility in central Iran. In a two-stage attack, the computer virus overloaded and destroyed at least 1,000 enrichment centrifuges, all the while reporting the situation as normal to workers. Though nobody is taking credit for this setback to Iran's nuclear ambitions, observers believe it to have been a joint operation between the United States and Israel.

Cyber warfare will almost certainly play some role in both a strike on Iran and the days that follow. When Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, for example, its planes passed through radar apparently undetected. How? Perhaps the raid involved an electronic attack on the Syrian air defense infrastructure. Following an attack on Iran, Israel would likewise use any means necessary to slow the gears grinding toward war. This would mean deploying disruptive cyber technologies. Electric grids are the most obvious target, as they often contain the most porous defenses. But interfering with aircraft guidance systems and targeting surveillance systems would offer the most gain, without further disruption of Iranian civilian life.

The problem with predicting cyber warfare is its "fairy dust"-like nature. Planners and observers can scarcely foresee what capabilities exist and whether or not they will work in any case. Simply put, like missile defense it is not a magic solution. Even in the case of the devastatingly effective Stuxnet attack, 4,000 centrifuges at Natanz remained operational. Cyber is but one item in the toolbox; it's not the box itself.

SEE MORE: Would Israel attack Iran without U.S. approval?

The West's unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), meanwhile, have seen much of Iran, both in the sky and on the ground. Last year, a Central Intelligence Agency RQ-170 Sentinel drone was downed over Iranian airspace near the border with Afghanistan. Iran captured the aircraft (designed to monitor nuclear facilities) before U.S. commandos could mount a rescue. Iranian scientists have since worked to unlock the secrets within, and U.S. intelligence and defense officials must now work under the assumption that the drone's cryptographic and stealth capabilities are compromised. There is some question as to whether the drone simply malfunctioned and landed, or whether Iran seized control by electronic means. If the latter is the case, it would suggest an interesting juncture in the brief history of drone warfare and espionage, and paint a remarkable portrait of Iran's cyber warfare capabilities. For its part, Iran has an ambitious drone research and development program.

SEE MORE: How badly will Iran's oil 'blackmail' hurt Europe?

Early last year, Iranian officials announced production of its own stealth UAV called the Eagle Ray, designed for surveillance and bombing runs. (It is unknown what, if any, design cues it may have later taken from the Sentinel.) This is in addition to a fleet of drones that includes a long-range bomber known as Karrar, and a partnership with Venezuela to build drones in South America. After an Israeli bombing, unmanned aerial vehicles would offer the most reliable imagery intelligence (IMINT) without jeopardizing lives, and more importantly, without complicating matters with captured pilots. Such IMINT would track military movements, monitor launch sites, and generally gather intelligence for further military action, should it come to that.

When technology fails, or proves to be too much sword and not enough scalpel, both countries can lean on their well-honed tradecraft. Iranian operatives have long aided Hezbollah in both its rocket and ground assault campaigns, and have targeted Israeli diplomats across Asia. Meanwhile, the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, is thought responsible for the aggressive assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, including the spectacular hit earlier this year involving motorcyclists attaching a magnetic bomb to a Natanz director's car. You can bet that the day after an Israeli strike on Iran, both countries would set their extensive spy networks into furious sleuthing and subterfuge campaigns.

SEE MORE: Obama's Israel summit: Did it reduce the risk of war with Iran?

Each of these techniques and technologies has been used, is being used, and will be used, with or without a strike by Israel against Iran. President Obama has taken a cautious line on the subject, warning of "consequences for Israel if action is taken prematurely," two days after saying, "I have Israel's back." Meanwhile, he has imposed on Iran some of the most restrictive sanctions ever placed on any country. For his part, Meir Dagan, former director of the Mossad, called an attack by Israel "the stupidest idea I've ever heard." And not without reason. Spy games and computer viruses are the best case scenario for the day after Israeli air force squadrons, their ordnance spent, depart Iranian airspace. The worst case, absent total victory, is total war.

Pentagon War Game Forecasts U.S. Would be Pulled into a New War If Israel Strikes Iran

The Envoy
March 20, 2012

Top U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey met with IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz in Washington March 19, 2012 (CJCS Dempsey …A classified Pentagon war game this month forecast that an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would likely draw the United States into a wider regional war in which hundreds of American forces could be killed, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

The war games' results have "raised fears among top American planners that it may be impossible to preclude American involvement in any escalating confrontation with Iran," the Times Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker wrote.

Defense experts said the reported war games results are another attempted warning signal to Israel not to go it alone or risk harming relations with the United States.

"The apparent results of the war game reported by the Times suggest that it will be much more difficult than Israeli leaders assume to keep the United States out of the conflict," former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Colin Kahl told Yahoo News by email. "In the retaliatory spasm following an Israeli strike, the odds that Iranian actions and miscalculations could drag the United States military are substantial."

The two-week war simulation exercise—dubbed "Internal Look"—took place from Feb. 26 -March 3 at U.S. Central Command's headquarters at MacDill Air Force base, near Tampa, Florida, and at some overseas locations, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command said Tuesday.

It was designed to "refine the command's battle rhythm and assess the staff's ability to coordinate and communicate on a modern battlefield," U.S. Central Command spokesman Col. John Robinson told Yahoo News in an email Tuesday.

The war game posited a scenario in which an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities led to Iran retaliating by striking a U.S.

"Navy warship in the Persian Gulf, killing about 200 Americans," thus drawing the United States into the war, the Times' report said.

But some former officials urged caution when interpreting the war games' reported results.

"It's clear the administration believes an Israeli strike on Iran would be extremely problematic," Ken Pollack, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution Saban Center for Middle East studies and a former director for Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council, told Yahoo News in a telephone interview Tuesday. "But it is not at all clear that the game demonstrates that an Israeli strike could produce American casualties."

Pollack, who has designed and directed many such war games, explained that the designers of the game could simply have created an Iranian attack on the U.S. Navy ship as a method for testing America's control system to see if it could handle it.

The report on the war games comes as Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Benny Gantz is in Washington for consultations. Meantime, the State Department's lead international Iran nuclear negotiator, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, is in Brussels Tuesday for meetings with her international counterparts to prepare for upcoming high-stakes talks with Iran over its nuclear program, a State Department official told Yahoo News Tuesday.

World War III Escalation Scenarios

Escalation Scenarios: The Third World War and Its Aftermath

By Carol Moore, CarolMoore.net
September 23, 2009

URGENT: Scenario 3 - Israel Bombs Iranian Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power plants are nuclear war targets which will spread massive additional radiation over thousands of square miles.

A world nuclear war is one that involves most or all nuclear powers releasing a large proportion of their nuclear weapons at targets in nuclear, and perhaps non-nuclear, states. Such a war could be initiated accidentally, aggressively or pre-emptively and could continue and spread through these means or by retaliation by a party attacked by nuclear weapons.

While some speak of “limited nuclear war,” it is likely that any nuclear war will quickly escalate and spiral out of control because of the “use them or loose them” strategy: If you don’t use all your nuclear weapons you are likely to have them destroyed by the enemy’s nuclear weapons.

Such a war could start through a reaction to terrorist attacks, or through the need to protect against overwhelming military opposition, or through the use of small battle field tactical nuclear weapons meant to destroy hardened targets. It might quickly move on to the use of strategic nuclear weapons delivered by short-range or inter-continental missile or long-range bomber. These could deliver high altitude bursts whose electromagnetic pulse knocks out electrical circuits for hundreds of square miles. Or they could deliver nuclear bombs to destroy nuclear and/or non-nuclear military facilities, nuclear power plants, important industrial sites and cities. Or it could skip all those steps and start through the accidental or reckless use of strategic weapons.

Below are six scenarios by which world nuclear war could come about. While these are some of the major scenarios and combination of attacks and retaliations, they are hardly exhaustive. U.S., Russian and other nuclear nations’ weapons strategizers deal with these scenarios every day but rarely let mere citizens in on their grizzly thinking. Citizens must end their denial and become aware of such scenarios.

GENERAL SCENARIOS

Accidental: Since the United States and Russia have “launch on warning” systems that send off rockets before it is confirmed a nuclear attack is underway, any tensions between them can lead to massive nuclear war within thirty minutes of a warning — no matter how false the warning may be.

Aggressive: One or more nations decide to use weapons against nuclear or non-nuclear nations in order to promote an economic, political or military goal, as part of an ongoing war or as a first strike nuclear attack. (The state, of course, may claim it is a pre-emptive, retaliatory or even an accidental attack.)

Pre-emptive: One or more nations believe (correctly or incorrectly) or claim to believe that another nuclear nation is about to use nuclear weapons against its nuclear, military, industrial or civilian targets, and pre-emptively attacks that nation. May result from political or military “brinkmanship.”

Retaliatory: Use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack — or even a conventional, chemical or biological attack by a non-nuclear nation.

ASSUMPTIONS OF THESE SCENARIOS

There is a whole body of knowledge and assumptions that is taken into account when putting together scenarios like those below. My bottom line assumption is that any nuclear exchange has an excellent chance of resulting in a series of escalations that will spiral out of control, setting off a round of exchanges among various enemies under a “use it or lose it” philosophy, as well as among the treaty allies of the relevant nuclear powers and their allies. This continues until most of the planet’s 20,000 odd nuclear weapons are exhausted. In making “limited nuclear war” calculations, all nations should assume “whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.” Unfortunately, too many strategizers assume they can conduct limited strikes and keep them limited.

Related assumptions include:

** Any nuclear attack on a primary Russian target like Moscow, St. Petersburg, or nuclear command headquarters by any nation or group, known or unknown, could lead to a commander turning on “The Dead Hand” strategy and/or prompt one or more of Russia’s semi-autonomous military field commanders to retaliate against U.S. and European nuclear targets. Attacks on secondary targets or nuclear detonations very close to Russian soil also might lead to some sort of nuclear escalation.

** Any nuclear attack on U.S. and/or European sites by any nation or group, known or unknown, probably will result in massive U.S. and/or European retaliation against the known or assumed perpetrators or their known or assumed allies.

** It is likely that the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan will use some of their weapons to attack other nuclear and non-nuclear nations which might threaten them after they have been devastated by nuclear war.

** Any nuclear attack on Israel by terrorists, or Pakistan, Russia or China, will result in Israel’s surviving land, air and submarine-carried or based-issiles being used against Arab and Muslim capitals. A particularly devastating attack (including chemical or biological weapons) possibly might result in a full scale “Samson Option” attack on European and Russian targets. The latter, of course, would result in Russian retaliation against the United States, perhaps its punishment for not having done enough to protect Israel.

** Any nation’s use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation will be only somewhat less inflammatory than using them against a nuclear nation, especially if that nation has many treaty allies. It will ratchet all nuclear nations' alert systems and lead to unforeseeable consequences that could easily spiral to world nuclear war.

NOTE: COLORS OF LINES AND DESCRIPTIONS ARE COORDINATED

Aggressive Pre-Emptive Retaliatory Accidental

SCENARIO 1.

RUSSIA OR U.S. MISTAKENLY INTERPRETS GLITCH DURING TIME OF TENSION AS NUCLEAR ATTACK, LEADING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

During time of minor or major political tension, especially active U.S. bombings of other nations or any use of nuclear weapons, Russian commanders' faulty early-warning-system detects false evidence of a nuclear attack from the United States. Russia launches a large proportion of its weapons at the U.S. and pre-emptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies, as well as China, India and Pakistan to cripple their nuclear capability. The U.S. and Europe retaliate at Russia and the U.S. attacks China to destroy its nuclear stocks. Israel retaliates against Russia and initiates aggressive attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols. India and China may strike each other to destroy any remaining nuclear or other military capability. (It is less likely that the U.S. would experience such a glitch; if so, the U.S. would strike Russia and China; they would retaliate against the U.S. and Europe and probably attack other potentially hostile nuclear powers to knock out their capability.)

SCENARIO 2.

U.S. OR RUSSIA THREATEN OR ENGAGE IN MILITARY AGGRESSION AGAINST SMALLER NATION, STARTING ESCALATION TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR

Russia and US engage in threats over further U.S. aggression in the Middle East or over Russia's refusal to withdraw troops from the former Soviet Republic Georgia. Russia and/or the U.S. pre-emptively strike the others' nuclear targets, leading to further rounds of retaliatory exchanges. Russia strikes pre-emptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies, as well as China, India and Pakistan to cripple their nuclear capability. Europe retaliates at Russia, and the U.S. attacks China to destroy any remaining nuclear stocks. Israel retaliates against Russia and initiates revenge attacks against Arab and Muslim capitols. India and China may strike each other to destroy any remaining nuclear or other military capability.

SCENARIO 3.

ISRAEL ATTACKS IRAN'S NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND/OR SYRIA AND LEBANON, WHICH RETALIATE WITH MASSIVE CONVENTIONAL OR WMD ROCKET ATTACKS; ISRAEL RETALIATES WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, ESCALATING TO WORLD NUCLEAR WAR


Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities and/or Syria and Lebanon. These countries respond with massive rocket attacks using conventional bombs and even some chemical, biological or radiological weapons. Israel responds with nuclear strikes against these nations and Pakistan. Outraged Pakistan retaliates against Israel and pre-emptively attacks Israel's ally/Pakistan's enemy India, which retaliates. Israel initiates "Samson option" and attacks Arab and Muslim capitols, as well as "antisemitic" Europe and Russia. Russian regional commanders retaliate against Israel, its ally the U.S., and U.S. European allies and China, to destroy its nuclear capability. The U.S. retaliates against Russia and hits China's nuclear capability. China uses any remaining nuclear weapons against Russia, the U.S. and India. India retaliates against China.

The Samson Option

From Wikipedia (for the 1991 book by Seymour Hersh, see The Samson Option.)

The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israel's alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well. Israel refuses to admit it has nuclear weapons or to describe how it would use them, an official policy of nuclear ambiguity, also known as “nuclear opacity.” This has made it difficult for anyone outside the Israeli government to definitively describe its true nuclear policy, while still allowing Israel to influence the perceptions, strategies and actions of other governments.

As early as 1976, the CIA believed that Israel possessed 10 to 20 nuclear weapons. By 2002 it was estimated that the number had increased to between 75 and 200 nuclear weapons. Kenneth S. Brower has estimated as many as 400 nuclear weapons. These can be launched from land, sea and air. This gives Israel a second strike option even if much of the country is destroyed.

The term “Samson Option” has also been used more generally in reference to Israel’s nuclear program. Commentators have also used the term in reference to situations where non-nuclear actors, such as Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat and Hezbollah threatened conventional weapons retaliation, and even to United States President George W. Bush's foreign policy.

Read the rest of the scenarios here

Historical Close Calls to World War Three

Before the end of the Second World War, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill expressed concern that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war, and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there existed a Soviet threat to Western Europe. In April-May 1945, British Armed Forces developed Operation Unthinkable; its primary goal was “to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire.” However, the plan was rejected by the British Chiefs of Staff Committee as militarily unfeasible.

With the development of the arms race, before the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, an apocalyptic war between the United States and the Soviet Union was considered plausible. The Doomsday Clock has served as a symbol of historic World War III close calls since the Truman Doctrine went into effect in 1947. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 is generally thought to be the historical point at which the risk of World War III was closest. Other potential starts have included the following:

1948

Berlin Blockade. Soviet military forces stopped all commerce into West Berlin which caused a humanitarian and political crisis. In response, Western allies sent in air lifts to supply West Berlin.

August 29, 1949

Soviet Union successfully conducted tests with nation’s first atomic bomb, RDS-1.

1950–1953

Korean War. General MacArthur planned to invade and bomb China to eliminate the threat of communism in eastern Asia.

August 12, 1953

Soviet Union successfully conducts tests of nation’s first hydrogen bomb, Joe-4.

July 26, 1956 – March, 1957

Suez Crisis: The conflict pitted Egypt against an alliance between France, the United Kingdom and Israel. When the USSR threatened to intervene on behalf of Egypt, the Canadian Ambassador to the UN Lester B. Pearson feared a larger war and urged the British and French to withdraw. The Eisenhower administration, also fearing a wider war, applied pressure to the United Kingdom to withdraw, including a threat to create a currency crisis by dumping US holdings of British debt. Lester B. Pearson later received a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

June 4 – November 9, 1961

Berlin Crisis of 1961.

October 15 – October 28, 1962

Cuban Missile Crisis: The conflict pitted the United States against an alliance between the USSR and Cuba. The USSR was attempting to place several launch sites in Cuba in response to the United States installation of missiles in Turkey. The United States response included dispersal of Strategic Air Command (SAC) bombers to civilian airfields around the United States and war games in which the United States Marine Corps landed against a dictator named “ORTSAC” (Castro spelt backwards). For a brief while, the U.S. military went to DEFCON 3, while SAC went to DEFCON 2. The crisis peaked on October 27, when a U-2 (piloted by Rudolph Anderson) was shot down over Cuba and another U-2 over the USSR was almost intercepted when it strayed over Siberia, after Curtis LeMay (U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff) had neglected to enforce Presidential orders to suspend all overflights. See also: Vasiliy Arkhipov.

October 24, 1973

Yom Kippur War: As the Yom Kippur War was winding down, a Soviet threat to intervene on Egypt’s behalf caused the United States to go to DEFCON 3.

September 26, 1983

False “US First Strike” Alarm: Soviet early warning systems showed that a US ICBM attack had been launched. Colonel Stanislav Petrov, in command of the monitoring facility, correctly interpreted the warnings as a computer error, even though this was against standing orders.

November 1983

Exercise Able Archer: The USSR mistook a test of NATO’s nuclear-release procedures as a fake cover for a NATO attack and subsequently raised its nuclear alert level. It was not until afterwards that the US realized how close it had come to nuclear war. At the time of the exercise the Soviet Politburo was without a healthy functioning head due to the failing health of then leader Yuri Andropov.

January 25, 1995

Norwegian rocket incident: A Norwegian missile launch for scientific research was detected from Andøya Rocket Range and thought to be an attack on Russia, launched from a submarine five minutes away from Moscow. Norway had notified the world that it would be making the launch, but the Russian Defense Ministry had neglected to notify those monitoring Russia’s nuclear defense systems.

June 12 – June 26, 1999

Pristina airport standoff: Russian and NATO forces had a standoff over the Pristina Airport in Kosovo.

Read more on Wikipedia

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page