The exercise of democratic power can be frustrating to watch. Even though our leaders may know what needs to be done, doing it is another matter. Before taking a step -- no matter how necessary, the voters must first be gathered behind them. And, if you haven't noticed, voters can be very fickle.

In the O.T. God gives His opinion of good governance. And, the funny thing  is, it isn't democracy. God reveals His opinion by using metals of different values to represent different kingdoms. In Daniel chapter 2 we read how God gave the king of Babylon a dream about the future. In his dream the king saw a great statue. It had a head of gold, a chest of silver, a belly of brass, legs of iron, and feet and toes of iron and clay. It turns out that the head of gold represented the king and his Babylonian kingdom. The chest of silver represented the coming Persian empire, the belly of brass the following Greek empire, the legs of iron the last Roman Empire and the feet and toes of iron and clay the latter day stages of the Roman Empire. From the metals that God used we might conclude that God is what today we could call a "realist." In His eyes, as man's governance grows less centralized and more democratic, it also becomes inferior.

It's a mistake, however, to interpret the above biblical account as God's endorsement of totalitarian kingdoms. You see, the Bible also tells us -- from man's first attempt at kingdom building way back in Genesis -- that God is the One who breaks apart these kingdoms. In the book of Daniel we learn that God sees the kingdoms of man as beasts that need to be restrained. 

Why am I saying all this? Because, I suspect our democratic leaders are being confronted with a huge dilemma. Their sleepy free world is in danger of exploding into chaos. And, if they can't succeed in providing a solution, there are others -- realists not so democratically inclined -- who will. I suspect that's partly what British Prime Minister Tony Blair was trying to say at today's news conference Read full text here. First Blair said:

And in respect of Iraq I, like you, welcome the Baker-Hamilton study group. It offers a strong way forward. I think it is important now we concentrate on the elements that are necessary to make sure that we succeed -- because the consequences of failure are severe.

Then Blair said:

Its people can either be presented with a choice between a secular or a religious dictatorship, which is not a choice that any free people would ever choose. Or, alternatively, they can enjoy the same possibilities of democracy that we hold dear in our countries. And this is not a view that we hold -- I hold because of idealism alone. It is because I also believe that the only realistic path to security is by ensuring the spread of liberty.

Friends, I believe Blair is saying that we should defend the religious principles that made possible our free world -- the principles that some today define as "idealism" and "ideology" -- from those among us who are ready to set them aside.

But, like I said before, the exercise of democratic power can be frustrating. Before taking a step our democratic leaders must gathered us voters behind them. So, that's what the Iraq Study Group is all about. It's an attempt at gathering America's fickle voters behind a battle that many believe the free world can't afford to lose.

Unfortunately, Bible prophecy tells us where this may be headed. And, at today's news conference, already in his second sentence, President Bush may have revealed something about what behind the scenes is going on. Bush said:

I always enjoy our [his and Blair's] discussions, and I appreciate your clear view that we are confronted with a struggle between moderation and extremism. And this is particularly evident in the broader Middle East.

Bush didn't say "greater" Middle East. Instead, this time he said "broader" Middle East. I wonder if he choked a little while saying it. You see, in exercising democratic power, precise words are necessary, especially when announcing a major policy shift -- such as Bush and Blair were doing. And, later in the news conference, Blair used the word "wider" Middle East. For those who read diplo-speak, Bush may have been conceding the failure of his "Greater Middle East" polices and the neo-con's dream of having an "American Century", and yielding to the EU's "Wider Middle East" policies and their dream for a "European Century". For me, the President's choice of words brings up a troubling question. Has America finally been brought to her knees?

Something significant is occurring. Yesterday's release of the Iraq Study Group Report coincides with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld being replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates. Today's joint news conference with Bush and Blair was no accident of timing. From the stand point of Bible prophecy, what's most significant may be what Bush finds interesting in the Iraq Study Group Report -- the idea of an international support group. 

Let's take a look at some of what the report says.

RECOMMENDATION 1: The United States, working with the Iraqi government, should launch the comprehensive New Diplomatic Offensive to deal with the problems of Iraq and of the region. This new diplomatic offensive should be launched before December 31, 2006.

RECOMMENDATION 5: The Support Group should consist of Iraq and all the states bordering Iraq, including Iran and Syria; the key regional states, including Egypt and the Gulf States; the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council; the European Union; and, of course, Iraq itself. Other countries—for instance, Germany, Japan and South Korea—that might be willing to contribute to resolving political, diplomatic, and security problems affecting Iraq could also become members.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The Support Group should call on the participation of the office of the United Nations Secretary-General in its work. The United Nations Secretary-General should designate a Special Envoy as his representative.

And, here we find the word that until today Bush didn't want to use -- wider. From what follows, it appears that Bush's new wider Middle East policy now includes Israel.

4. The Wider Regional Context
The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel's right to exist), and particularly Syria—which is the principal transit point for shipments of weapons to Hezbollah, and which supports radical Palestinian groups.

Friends, I believe the Bible's entire end-time scenario may now be before us. What started out for me as a discovery of the possible 10-nation alliance of prophecy at the beginning of the First Gulf War has now led to a covenant with many that's about to be confirmed for a period of seven years. According to Blair at today's news conference, all the elements for peace in the Middle East are already in place. The only thing that stands in the way are the religious extremists who fear democracy. But, as I've been reporting, that's where the UN's new Alliance of Civilizations (AOC) is supposed to come in. The AOC's war against religious fundamentalism is due to kick in by 2010 -- the middle of the coming seven-year period. And, if you recall, that's also when all the many free trade zones are to be completed, in order to better control global financial transactions and make our exercise of democratic power safer from terror. 

Too bad it won't work.