It is one thing to say, "Iran will become big, powerful and scary. This is part of my religion." But facts are facts. If you get your facts about things that had actually happened wrong people are going to think you do not what will happen in the future. With that thought in mind that let us look at the following anonymously written article from PCG, "Iran and Europe Heading for a Clash of Civilizations" (September 14, 2017).
In recent years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has transformed from pariah to ally.
It is quite a stretch to describe US relations with Iran while the JCPOA was in force as one between allies. Many would question that characterization. And even then this state of affairs did not last long thanks to President Trump who chose to break the US government's word that it would adhere to the agreement. PCG applauded this move.
Iran is still a theocracy, governed by a radical cleric who, like 85 percent of Iranians, believes in Twelver Shiism, an ideology that embraces death.
That is a dreadful and ignorant thing to say. That is hate speech. That is an appalling to thing to say. How can they vilify, not only the Iranian government, but every adherent of Twelver Shiism all over the world like this? That is a shameful and frightening thing to say. How dare PCG says such inflammatory talk.
[Iran] continues its march toward becoming a nuclear power.
Iran has said they do not want nuclear weapons. Back in 2003 Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa declaring the possession of nuclear weapons as contrary to Islam.
The article discusses some of Herbert W. Armstrong's speculations. If one carefully reads it one will note that HWA never said Iran would be the "King of the South." Back in the era of Fascism HWA taught that Ethiopia was the King of the South. Even after World War II HWA still taught that doctrine in his booklet, The Middle East in Prophecy. Some within Radio/WCG such as Garner Ted Armstrong and Keith Stump taught that there would be a future King of the South but they tended to assume such a future personage would arise among the Arabs, not Iran. HWA himself does not appear to have personally promoted that idea.
It is stated that Gerald Flurry speculated on who the King of the South would be in 1990.
The article contains the following amusing misprint.
Writing about Islam's immense population, control of oil and possible acquisition of nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union...
The writer seems to have meant Iran. Iran. Islam. So easy to those confused, isn't?
And [Gerald Flurry] repeated that forecast dozens of times per year from 1993 through to today.
In other words he had not decided who the King of the South should be until 1993. With Iraq severely weakened after the Gulf War and suffering strict sanctions imposed by the United Nations Iran would appear to be more convincing as a dreaded enemy.
Is it really possible that this 2 [and a half] millennia-old prophecy accurately describes 21st-century Iran?
As Dr. Phil would say, this is not a question. This is a statement disguised as a question. That well describes PCG's belief about their interpretation of that particular part of the Old Testament.
Push is a violent word!
Usually it is not. But this is the jargon of the group. To be accepted into the group one must accept this dogma no matter how absurd it sounds outside of the group. Several times in this article it is asserted that Iran is pushy. It still sounds ridiculous.
The article quotes a 1998 article by Flurry.
Iran has a foreign policy with a lot of "push."
This sounds so ridiculous.
Looking around the Middle East, Iran clearly has a foreign policy with the most pushiness.
The article scare mongers about Shia Muslims in the Middle East. Once again Shia Muslims as a whole are condemned and presented in a menacing manner to the reader. Shame on PCG for stirring up sectarian anger.
Iran actively seeks to destabilize nations where there is a significant Shiite population. In fact, every nation that has a substantial Shiite presence is currently embroiled in conflict.
The article then talks about Iran's influence in certain nations in the Middle East, namely Lebanon via Hezbollah, Syria and Iraq.
Then the article talks about the Houthis in Yemen.
In Yemen, the Houthis, a Shiite sect in the northwest of the country, continue to wage war against the government.
The Houthis are a political movement within Yemen. It is a not a sect of Shia Islam. How can anyone trust this writer. The writer keeps making mistakes about verifiable facts.
The article then quotes an advisor to a former Iranian President without stating the source of the quote.
The article then quotes a columnist from Fox News. PCG is a right wing organization and that quote from Fox News further confirms that fact. I do not condemn the PCG leadership for choosing to be right wing but it is worth mentioning that they are right wing since this explains much of their political stances.
The article then states:
Clearly, it is Iran's pushy actions that are destabilizing the Middle East.
Calling any nation state "pushy" sounds ridiculous.
The article then scare mongers that Iran is plotting to make nuclear weapons even though Iran has often insisted that they are not trying to make a nuclear weapon. The article cites a quote from President Hassan Rouhani from 2002. However in 2003 Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a fatwa declaring that possessing nuclear weapons is against Islam. Any alleged attempt to make a nuclear weapon within Iran ended with that fatwa. That's why the article had to cite a source from before that fatwa of 2003.
The article quotes an another article by Flurry from 2011 where he makes this curious comment about the Suez Crisis of 1956.
Controlling the Suez Canal is not enough. Egypt tried that in 1956, when Britain, France and Israel kicked it out in one attack. [Flurry then moves on to another topic.]
Actually Egypt succeeded in gaining control of the Suez Canal. President Eisenhower decided to oppose this attack against Egypt and consequently Britain and France had to give up the Suez Canal and the State of Israel found itself compelled to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula and the Palestinian Gaza Strip. Egypt got the Suez Canal. It is strange that Flurry seems to be unaware of this fact.
Now [Iran] is working to take over the Red Sea. You can see this now by ... the heavy influence it has gained in Somalia, and the long-standing relationship it has had with Sudan.
Of all the things to worry about in the world the article's writer is worried about Iranian influence in Somalia. Bewailing Somalia's tragic civil war since 1988 is certainly justified but who else in the world is worrying about Iran's influence in Somalia?
The article displays sloppiness in the following passage in which three leading officials are mentioned in a vague and careless manner.
Iran also hosts the International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada. In 2017, it held the sixth such conference, which explicitly promotes the intifada, aimed at ending Israel’s very existence. The three most powerful men in Iran, the ayatollah, the speaker of the house and the president, all gave speeches calling for Israel’s destruction.
It is no secret that Iran and Israel are adversaries. Strangely the writer can not be bothered mentioning these three officials by name. Don't the readers of this article deserve to know by name who would call for the destruction of the State of Israel? The writer seems to be referring Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, Speaker Ali Larijani who was speaker from 2008 until 2020, and President Rouhani. A moment of research would have easily supplied that information and yet the author did not bother to do that for this article. Is this a sign of carelessness?
The writer also makes a careless mistake in referring to Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei simply as "the ayatollah." An Ayatollah is a religious title given to high ranking religious leaders within Shia Islam. It is not a political office. The reason people who read the news would pay attention to Khamenei is because he happens to be Iran's Supreme Leader, an office somewhat similar to a monarch in a constitutional monarchy, not because he happens to be an Ayatollah. There are other Ayatollahs out there in the world of Shia Islam.
Since the author of that article did not notice that distinction what else is this article wrong about?
It is insisted that the leaders of Iran are religious fanatics who think causing a war would somehow make the Mahdi arrive. This allegation seems to be a reference to Ahmadinejad, who was President from 2005 until early 2013. He is not the President of Iran anymore.
The gigantic clash the Trumpet is expecting, in fulfillment of these biblical prophecies, all begins with pushy Iran. This is the same nation that is about to get the nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders and many of their people believe the 12th imam—their version of the Messiah—is about to return. They think his return can be hastened by creating violence and chaos. Several nations have nuclear weapons—but only Iran has leaders who harbor such dangerous religious thinking! What will happen when they achieve nuclear capability? What sort of chaos would they stir up if they thought it would cause their messiah to return? In the thrall of religious zealotry, they would not even care about their own destruction!
The PCG article makes the factually absurd claim that no one is willing to stand up to Iran. The truth is a lot of people are weary of Iran and seek to counteract it.
But who is going to stand up to Iran? If no one will stand up to it today, when it does not yet have nuclear bombs, who will stand up to it when it actually has the bomb?
PCG will often state that no one is really standing up to Iran. It is hard to view such emotive language as anything else but an expression of desire for war with Iran. PCG's belligerent rhetoric towards Iran is frightening. Iran is a massive nation state, far larger than Iraq. Unlike Iraq in 2003 Iran has a well developed military infrastructure. Unlike Iraq in 2003 Iran has many allies throughout the Middle East. A war with Iran would be horrific. American soldiers will be killed if such a war were to occur.
There are religious and ethnic minorities within Iran, including Christians and Jews, who would be bound to suffer if such a war occurred. These minorities are left unmentioned in the entire article.
Also there are people in Iran who are working hard to try and make Iran a more socially liberal society. If war with America occurred their hard work will go down the drain so long as such a hypothetical war would occur.
And yet at the time PCG teaches their followers to refuse military service as conscientious objectors. If America were to go to war with Iran PCG members would be far away from the field of battle. They would even say that it is part of their religion. There is a word to describe people who call for war and yet refuse to serve in the armed forces: chickenhawk.
The article ends with an ad for a booklet by PCG's leader, Gerald Flurry, where it is confidently asserted that Iran will not go to war against America, but rather with the future European Empire. But if they really believe that then why do they constantly scare monger against Iran? There will be no war between Iran and America, they say. Unfortunately it seems safe to assume many who read PCG's belligerent writings about Iran in PCG's other articles will not catch that caveat.
IRAN WILL GO TO WAR—BUT NOT WITH AMERICA
The Trumpet has watched Iran for more than 25 years. It projected the rising aggression of its terror-powered foreign policy. Today, the world has begun to recognize that Iran is becoming what the Trumpet forecast in 1992: the “king of the south.” Yet analysts still do not realize what Iran’s future holds: Its aggressive foreign policy will explode into war—not with America, but with a new superpower!
Why has Iran risen so powerfully? Why won’t America confront it? And who is this new superpower? The Trumpet has no special insight into the answers—except for its one “inside source.” That source is [PCG's interpretation of] the Holy Bible. Find out how the Bible identifies Iran [according to PCG] and what it forecasts for the future.
America would be better off if PCG stopped their bitter, angry tirades against Iran. Also PCG's vilification of Shia Muslims, calling a form of Shia Islam in this article "an ideology that embraces death," instead of criticizing the Iranian government, is appalling and could arguably constitute a form of hate speech. Also the article's sloppy of the title "Ayatollah" suggests that the author of this article is not particularly knowledgeable about Iran or Shia Islam. Also since PCG members are not willing to put themselves on the front lines of such a future war there is no good reason to take their scare mongering seriously. It is written, "Blessed are the peacemakers," and yet PCG refuse to follow such high minded ideals. The peoples of the world would be better off ignoring these bitter, careless tirades from PCG. The people need and deserve proper information about how the world operates. This article from PCG fails to do this.