Iran’s Dual Political Voice–Part Three
Does Iran’s governing framework and prevailing religious ideology create mixed political messages for the West? Why is the Iranian leadership fixed on the notion of nuclear development and the eventual acquiring of a nuclear weapon? Is there reason to believe that Iran will use its growing Eurasian alliances to influence geopolitical outcomes in the Middle East? Does the Bible give us a future perspective for the people of Iran? The nations of Eurasia are diverse in their histories, cultures and traditions, and the many peoples of this vast geopolitical landscape are capable, enterprising and inventive, with the potential to forge out a better world for themselves and for other nations beyond Eurasia. The question at hand is whether or not the current political and economic ambitions of these peoples and nations will lead to the prosperity, dignity, security and peace that they seek, and whether or not their efforts to harness their collective powers will make for that better world. Of course, this is a question intrinsically related to the paradox of human nature–a nature that is both good and bad, and one that decides for itself what is right and wrong–and this paradox of human nature is often expressed in the same way in the behavior of nations. Something that must be understood when dealing with international relations, because it tells us a lot about how nations cooperate one with the other–for good or for bad–and whether or not nations can find the right values that allow them to work together to solve their many problems. This quest for values, solutions and cooperation has led people to create and nations to accept the many “-isms” that we have today, that is to say socialism, capitalism, Marxism, egalitarianism and communism to name just a few, each reflecting the paradox of human nature and the nature of nations. Nevertheless, despite this obvious paradox among nations, and the serious differences in political regimes that exist today, the nations of Iran, China, India and Russia have the ability, along with other collaborative nations, to consolidate and harmonize their geopolitical strategies. Not necessarily as a matter of blending many common cultural and historical interests, but rather as a group of nations that believe in their own political philosophies, and also feel they have a common threat or competitor in the United States and NATO. With the threat being perceived not strictly in the military sense, but rather a perceived threat that comes from a feeling of uncertainty and instability as a result of the West’s decline–politically, economically and morally–in a way that tends to engender conspiracy theories and foster worrisome trends among the nations and peoples of Eurasia. Meaning that Western nations should take note of their political immaturities, and consider their own moral standards, and learn to walk more circumspectly when dealing with a growing Eurasian union. Because the fears created by Western decline, whether they are tangible or simply created in the imagination, play an important role in international affairs, and they often act collectively as a mover of foreign policy. Consequently, if there is a common perception that the West is in decline, then these four nations may well seek to walk with one step economically–along with other nations globally–while working together to project and display military and political power to “protect” their sovereignty and independence from the uncertain results of a declining West. This would, of course, create greater discord between the West and the East, and also create vulnerabilities in Middle East States as the Belt and Road Initiative moves ever closer to the Levant and Israel. Giving then Iran’s brash rhetoric toward Israel the potential to have grave consequences in the future–not necessarily or strictly through proxy wars or terrorism–but through the position that Iran gains as a strategic partner in the SCO, BRICS and a greater Eurasian sphere. Noting that Iran’s participation in the Belt and Road Initiative could allow Iran to project its political will to the fringe of the Middle East–to the edge of the most volatile “shatterbelt”–and this would force Israel to genuinely expect confrontations with Iran and more importantly with a greater Eurasia. (Some consider Mackinder’s “Heartland theory,” and Spykman’s “Rimland theory” to be outdated, but given the recent views of China and Russia, these schools of thought are apparently moving front and center in Eurasian geopolitics today.) Creating a situation where Iran’s strategic relationship with Eurasia and its dual political voice–a religiopolitical voice with imperialistic notions–may well bring Iran and the Eurasian nations to step their feet into the stream of biblical prophecy by how they might choose to interact with Israel. And that place in the stream is where a nation or nations politically act to block the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham regarding Israel’s future in the Middle East and the promised intervention of Jesus in the coming establishment of the kingdom of God (Rom. 4:13-17; Gal. 3:14; Rev. 21:1-8). For the Apostle Paul tells us that the promises given to Abraham, of an eventual perpetual inheritance through Jesus, are the same promises afforded to other nations outside of the commonwealth of Israel–through this same Jesus. This we glean from Paul when he wrote, “and the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed” (Gal. 3:8). Meaning that the coming kingdom of God is a geopolitical reality as it is addressed in the Bible–as spoken of by Jesus–and that reality ought to be a red flag for all nations of the world that may find themselves focusing and intervening on the political issues of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. Even Jesus himself addressed a future time when God would send him to intervene in world affairs beginning at Jerusalem, and the consequence of that intervention would fall on all those who would politically and militarily involve themselves in the affairs of Israel. In this context, we find Luke conveying the