Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter obligates all UN member states to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

What does that mean, exactly? It means that, insofar as the UN Charter is concerned, the THREAT of using force 'against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state' is the same as the ACTUAL use of force.

At the time the Charter was being drawn up, the world had just emerged from a second, devastating world war and UN planners realized that it could have been averted if the world had taken action as soon as the threat was perceived.

Adolph Hitler had systematically laid out his plans for global conquest and the extermination of the Jewish race in his book, "Mein Kampf" which means, in English, "My Struggle".

(Interestingly, were one to translate "Mein Kampf" into Arabic, the book title would be "Jihad" -- since 'jihad' also means 'my struggle').

So the UN architects of the post-war world wanted to ensure there would be a provision the UN could invoke to take action in response to a threat, instead of having to wait until the threat became a reality.

The thinking was that, had there been a UN in the 1930's, it could have shut down Hitler's Third Reich before it reached the pinnacle of its power.

In 1996, the International Court of Justice ruled that use-of-force threats that violated Article 2.4 of the Charter also posed a threat to international peace and security under Article 51.

Article 51 is the self-defense clause that authorizes the use of pre-emptive force in the event a nation believed its security was being threatened.

So, what does this mean in context? In 2002, the United States invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban. The Taliban didn't attack the US, but it supported those who did. And as such, it posed a threat to the United States under Article 2.4 and the US was justified, under Article 51, to launch a pre-emptive invasion.

It is worth noting that even the Bush administration's harshest critics, both international and domestic, agreed that the Afghanistan invasion was justified under the terms of the UN Charter.

Mahmoud Ahamdinejad wrapped up Iran's 'Holocaust Conference' aimed at denying it ever took place by promising, "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom."

The Israelis, unsurprisingly, see Ahmadinejad's comments as just the latest in a long line of existential threats against their nation. In other speeches, Ahmadinejad is quoted saying things like:

"The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

In addition to the Holocaust denial conference, Tehran has hosted conferences with such titles as, "A World Without Zionism" and even held an international contest for the best anti-semitic editorial cartoons.

Tehran openly supports, trains and equips Hezbollah, which claims Israel's destruction as its reason for being.

And, judging from incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates' comments during his confirmation hearing, “no one can promise that Iran will not use nuclear weapons against Israel.”

Israeli officials are taking Gates' comments to mean that Washington is washing its hands of responsibility for stopping Iran from using nuclear weapons against Israel. Should it come to a nuclear confrontation, Israel believes that America will stand aside.

That is believed to be one of the reasons that Ehud Olmert broke Israel's decades-old policy of nuclear ambiguity. Israel's policy has always been to never confirm or deny the existence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal.

By not confirming it, it avoids interference from the IAEA. By not denying it, Israel maintains a strategic nuclear deterrent.

Olmert created an international and domestic uproar when he also admitted in a recent speech that Israel is a nuclear power. It was intended as a warning that Israel can and will respond in kind to the threat of nuclear attack, as allowed under the UN Charter.

Ezekiel predicts that the Gog-Magog alliance, headed by Russia but instigated by Persia (Iran) will launch a surprise invasion of the Jewish State "in the latter years".

The invasion, Ezekiel says, will end on the mountains of Israel in a conflagration of "pestilence and blood" emanating from "an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone," -- the exact description of what takes place at Ground Zero in a nuclear explosion. (Ezekiel 38:22)

Why do I say 'headed by Russia but instigated by Persia"? Ezekiel predicts that Russia will be drawn, somewhat reluctantly, into the conflict, as if it had 'hooks in its jaws.'

Russia's military/economic/nuclear relationship with Iran ties Moscow's destiny to Tehran's. Any attack against Iran would force Moscow into the conflict on Tehran's side.

Israel, under the terms of the UN Charter, is legally justified in launching a preemptive attack against Iran. And without assurances of support from Washington, Israel has but two viable choices remaining.

It can attack before Tehran goes nuclear. Or it can wait until Iran uses its nuclear weapons to make good on Ahmadinejad's serial threats to annihilate the Jewish State.

The only third option would be to wait passively for nuclear destruction. (It would only take one bomb).

Should Israel launch a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, it will almost certainly be a conventional attack. Israel cannot afford to be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East conflict.

A conventional attack against Iran's nukes would be met by a conventional Iranian response. That would force Russia, almost against its will, into the conflict on the Iranian side.

Ezekiel and Joel both say the invasion will make it as far as the mountains of Israel (the West Bank) before five-sixths of the invading army are destroyed by 'blood, fire and pillars of smoke'. (Joel 2:20)

"And when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh." (Luke 21:28)

'These things' are well past the 'beginning'. The signs of the times are undeniable. This IS the time spoken of by the prophets.

"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." (Romans 13:11)