This story from the Times of Israel reports an interview with the leading candidate to be the next Mossad chief. The story says that Ram Ben Barak believes,
“…if the Americans would insist and press more, a much better agreement could be achieved. There is no doubt a good deal is preferable to war. Everyone understands this, from the prime minister to the last citizen on the street. But a bad deal can have really serious implications.”
Ram Ben Barak in a TV screen capture on July 4th. Photo from Times of Israel.
Today of course Iran is fighting a proxy war with Sunni nations with one hand tied behind its back, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Once a nuclear deal is set, billions of dollars in frozen assets would be available to the Iranian regime and so would nuclear weapons, eventually. Then the Second Signpost would be free to begin just as the title of the story suggests – “Nuke deal will set up Iran to take over Middle East.” Barak also said that Iran would “advance to a position where no one will be able to threaten it and it will acquire control wherever it pleases.” Sounds like Daniel 8:4 doesn’t it?
I don’t think Barak knows the Signpost interpretation of Daniel, and so probably does not realize that Iran will take over the Middle East in a move that will shock him and the world. But Barak is on the right track.
There is also a second problem that Barak sees. Eventually the Muslims will stop fighting each other and focus on Israel as Barak says, “the war in Syria will stabilize, and then the common enemy will again be us. We need to prepare for this.”
However, if the Signpost interpretation is correct, the Muslims will not turn onto Israel until the end of the Fourth Signpost. But the Bible says it will happen prior to Messiah’s return.
For someone who doesn’t know the Signpost interpretation of Daniel, he gets the general picture.
Categories: The Four Signposts
THE FOUR SIGNPOSTS 
Wow !! I really enjoy reading your book. Great work. May God use you more and more. Looking forward to the great Iranian Invasion.
Is it sure that according to the signpost interpretation, Israel will not be attacked until the end of the fourth signpost?
If you say “will not be conquered” in stead of “will not be attacked” I agree.
But is it not possible that Israel will be attacked by Iran in the second signpost, but will repel the attack, ending with an uneasy ceasefire with Iran because of Israels successes against it, and/or Israels nuclear deterrence?
Good question, Adamant. Check out this post. I believe Israel will be attacked prior to the Fourth Signpost – not by large and organized powerful countries – but by the rabble surrounding Israel.
Thanx Mark. I had read that post about the psalm 83 war before, but had forgotten it.
It does make sense.
If Iran in the second signpost does not attack Israel directly itself, but only by its proxies:
1. Israel has not sufficient reason to counter attack Iran itself with its nukes or otherwise
2. Israel will be very busy repelling the proxies and beating them, and possibly conquering their territories.
And for both reasons Israel would not (or not sufficiently) come to the aid of those nations being attacked by Iran.
However, if this Iranian proxy war indeed is the psalm 83 war, then Jordan must take part in this attack on Israel, as you described.
This implies that the second signpost will not take place before Jordan has become an Iranian proxy, showing us that the second signpost is not due yet now.
Or could Jordan becoming an Iranian proxy be a consequence of the second signpost, so that the psalm 83 war is only the second phase of the second signpost?
Adamant,
I believe Jordan may become an Iranian proxy prior to the Psalm 83 war, but after the war it would become an Israeli proxy, and construction could begin on the Temple.