February 7, 2008
It began as a story that went largely unnoticed in the western world. On February 2, 2008, I noticed a very brief article in my local newspaper, the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, that “two cables deep under the Mediterranean Sea snapped Wednesday.” That would place the break on January 30, 2008. The severed cables disrupted internet traffic for much of India, Pakistan, Egypt and the Arab oil states on the Persian Gulf. The article also noted that “A third undersea Internet cable was cut Friday about 35 miles from Dubai in the Persian Gulf.” That cable was cut on February 1, 2008. When three such vital cables get cut within two days in two different maritime regions, it is very hard to regard this as a “coincidence.” I think someone “sent a message” to someone else, and the act of cutting the cables was an exercise in hardball geopolitics. Let’s try to ascertain what may have happened.
The first link below, from the Australian media, noted that “100 million internet users were affected” by the severed cables. Initial responses surmised that a ship’s anchor accidentally severed the cables in the Mediterranean Sea, but that theory lost credibility when “Egypt’s Transport Minister [stated that] video surveillance shows no ships were in the area at the time of the incident.” The Australian article examines whether the cut cables were a bizarre coincidence or evidence that some power sabotaged the cables. Apparently, Australia took the incident seriously and “boosted” its protection of undersea cables providing internet service to that nation.
I’ll share with you my theory about who cut the cables and why they did it. Ask yourself first “Who gets hurt?” by this action. The nations hurt by this action were India (which has drawn closer to the West and recently launched an Israeli spy satellite into orbit–certainly to spy on Iran), Pakistan (which is mostly an ally in the West’s war on terrorism), Egypt (which receives massive amounts of US aid) and the Arab oil states (which host US forces and sell oil to the West). Now ask yourself “Who benefits?’ from this action Obviously, the nations which benefit are the rivals of the Western alliance. Russia and Iran are the most obvious candidates for this action. Iran is a Shiite power which is already intimidating the Sunni Arab oil states who lost internet service, and Iran would be angry at India for aiding Israel’s efforts to spy on Iran. Did Russia have means, motive and opportunity to cut the cables in the Mediterranean Sea? I think the answer is yes.
Few nations have the submersible vehicles necessary to find and destroy the cables at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. Russia is one of the nations which does have that ability. Not long ago Russia planted its flag at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean to “send a message” to the West that it intended to claim that ocean’s natural resources. The second link below, from the World Tribune website, notes that, as of February 5, 2008, the Russian Navy concluded a large-scale, two-week naval exercise in the Mediterranean Sea (its first such mission in 15 years). The article reported that “Russia has been conducting naval exercises with such Mediterranean states as Algeria and Syria. Russia has been financing the upgrade of Syria’s port of Tartous to accommodate large naval ships.” Clearly, the Russian fleet sailed north of Egypt on the way between Algerian and Syrian waters, and it was operating in Mediterranean waters when the cables were cut. Could a Russian surface ship or submarine have passed through this area and, using underwater submersible technology, planted an explosive charge on the cables with a timer device so it would disable the cables after the Russian fleet had left the region (giving Russia plausible deniability about the incident)? The fact that another cable was cut just two days later in the Persian Gulf gives the impression these events were coordinated. Russia is providing Iran with high-tech nuclear facilities, warplanes and air-defense systems. Perhaps they helped with underwater technology as well.
Does this sound too far-fetched an idea to consider? If so, ponder the information in the third link below (a Reuters story posted on Yahoo/Singapore). It relates that in a briefing to the US Congress, the top US spy chief issued a warning about Russia, China and OPEC nations using their “growing financial clout to advance political goals.” He observed that “the Russian military had begun to reverse a long decline,” and added that “Russia and China have long been able to target US computer systems to collect intelligence” and he further warned that “the worrisome part is, today, they could also target information infrastructure systems for degradation or destruction” (emphasis added). Hmmm. Undersea cables carrying the internet traffic so vital to the world’s economy are a vital “information infrastructure system,” and three of those cables were just “cut.” I think the warning of the US spy chief about Russia attacking such systems was quite timely. I think Russia just sent another “hardball” message to the Western nations. It’s previous such “hardball” messages included sending strategic bombers to the borders of NATO nations, firing cruise missiles in a naval exercise just off the coasts of France and Spain, waging info-war against Estonia when it shut down that nation’s internet service, withdrawing from Cold War military limitation treaties, etc.
The fourth link below, from the London Telegraph website, warns that “Russia is steadily ‘unravelling’ the historic arms control treaties that ended the Cold War,” and that “Russia [is] breaking out of the constraints imposed by treaties once considered inviolable.” Why is anyone surprised by Russia’s action? Was it Stalin or another Russian leader who said: “treaties are like pie crusts, made to be broken.” After the fall of the Berlin Wall, western leaders were deceived into thinking that Russia would be a partner in a New World Order being planned by globalist political and corporate leaders. Revelation 18 uses the term “Babylon the Great” to describe the globalist economic system sponsored by an alliance of political leaders and multinational corporations that would exist in the latter days of this age (see my article “What Kind of Captivity?” available at this website for more information on Babylon the Great). Ezekiel 38 prophesies that at the very end of our age, Russia, China and Iran will attack the nations of the western world (the modern descendants of the ten tribes of Israel and their allies) to destroy capitalistic globalism and replace it with their own totalitarian rule. Their attack will trigger World War III, which will be so violent that Matthew 24:21-22 prophesies that “no flesh” would be saved alive unless Jesus Christ returned to intervene and end it.
Events are moving quickly to set the world stage for the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38 and many other biblical prophecies about the end of our age (see my article entitled “What Ezekiel 38-39 Reveal about a Future World War III,” also available at this website). The world alliances specifically prophesied in Ezekiel 38 for the latter days have fallen into place. No force in heaven or earth can stop the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The Creator who made ALL spirit and human beings has decreed in Isaiah 41:21-26 that he will implement all his ancient biblical prophecies and he challenges everyone to watch him do so! Human nations can make whatever plans and treaties they want to make. but it will not stop the fulfillment of prophecy. Proverbs 21:1 states that “the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord…he turns it whithersoever he will.” Ezekiel 38:10-12 prophecy that Gog, the leader of the end-time alliance led by Russia, China and Iran, will “think an evil thought” and will launch a military strike against the nations of the latter-day ten tribes of “Israel.” When the time for this attack arrives on the Divine timetable, the leader of Russia’s alliance will think exactly what God tells him to think. It won’t matter what promises he’s made to western leaders or what treaties he has signed. After all, Russian leaders think treaties are just “pie crusts made to be broken.”