First, one can always count on Iran's president to come up with a new and "interesting" quote:
"Ahmadinejad: Whoever controls the Mideast controls the world". Interesting quote. The antichrist will direct his attention to the Middle East, at least early in his reign. Maybe Ahmadinejad isn't completely psychotic after all.
The second article, once again, comes under the heading of "Rumors of war" (aka "preparations for war"):
"U.S. rushes Gulf defense systems"
One quote says it all:
"The United States has begun beefing up its approach to defending its Persian Gulf allies against potential Iranian missile strikes, officials say. The defenses are being stepped up in advance of possible increased sanctions against Iran."
This article (below) is worth reading in its entirety:
"Who will blink first?"
This article discusses the strategy that Iran will most likely implement, and on that, I have to agree wholeheartedly. This pattern of Iran using Hezbollah and Hamas as their proxies is well established and there is no reason to think that Iran would discontinue this practice.
"...achieving nuclear capability during President Ahmadinejad's tenure is said to be a mandate of the Iran Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC). With the IRGC's significant influence and control over the Iranian economy, security, public policy and military, the goal will undoubtedly be reached."
"Given its significant investments in strategic planning in conventional and unconventional military engagement, and following established patterns (Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen), it seems unlikely that a IRGC would launch the first strike directly from Iran. It is more likely that this would be put into motion by an IRGC proxy much closer to Israel. The IRGC could then embark on conventional warfare to cover its tracks. With media and public opinion generally unsympathetic to Israel, it is not beyond belief that Iran could convince people or develop doubts in people's minds that the nuclear first strike was instead conventional warfare striking Israel's own nuclear war-heads and giving the impression of a nuclear attack."
"A first strike on Israel would also present a convenient opportunity for Israel's enemies to engage in further destruction. Israel, perceived as weakened and vulnerable, might be seen as ripe for a multi-pronged attack by those who want to see the Jewish state destroyed. In fact it would be far easier for the IRGC to let the Arabs finish the job all on their own. Strategically, the IRGC's expansionist strategies would work perfectly in the aftermath of such events."
"A first strike from a closer proximity would be devastating to Israel, possibly irrecoverable, considering Israel's size versus the coverage of the strike. Being somewhat larger, Iran would survive a second strike by Israel quite well. Not only might a first strike on Israel eliminate its capacity to launch a second strike from land, but Israel might also find it hard to justify launching an attack on Iran if the first strike originated from a third country. That would only bring more international condemnation of Israel. With any missile launched towards Israel from anywhere having potential to be "the one," Israel's future military success will be defined by how well it can address incoming missiles of any kind. Investment in anti-ballistic missile technologies will continue to be a priority."
That is an interesting premise: even a nuclear strike by Iran could be launched by one of their proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Add Syria to the mix. It makes perfect sense if you are Iran's leader for the reasons given in this commentary.
How this whole scenario will roll out is anyone's guess, but it seems logical that extensive involvement by these proxies will be part of the overall process.
As stated in Zechariah 12; Israel will be surrounded by her enemies in the last days. As Jesus stated in Matthew 24, this last generation will be one defined by "wars and rumors of war". Indeed. We're most definitely living in the last days of this final generation.