Home / Book Review – The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps by Mike Evans

Book Review – The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps by Mike Evans

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Mike Evans, author of The Final Move Beyond Iraq , has impressive credentials as a journalist. A member of The Press Club covering world events for more than 20 years, he has appeared on many radio and television talk shows discussing world events and has authored several books about events in the Middle East including Beyond Iraq: The Next Move and Showdown With Nuclear Iran. He has been a confidant to many Israeli prime ministers. He is also a conservative and a Christian.

The Final Move Beyond Iraq provides a wealth of information about the Middle East: the relationship and conflicts among the various countries; much detail about the history of Islam, including the events that led to the rift between Shiites and Sunnis; and an explanation of the famous Twelfth Imam Prediction. The reader will become very well informed reading this book, and I highly recommend it.

Some surprising information to me is that the United States helped Britain overthrow Iran’s democratically elected government in 1951. Mohammed Mossadegh, a nationalist, was elected prime minister of Iran. He had Iranian parliament nationalize the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. In response, Britain tried to depose Mossadegh and his cabinet and return control of government to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the Shah of Iran), who was sympathetic to British interests. Britain needed American help because Mossadegh was very well received by the Iranians, but Truman, to his credit, refused. Eisenhower agreed when he became president. This was the first time in its history that the United States helped overthrow a democratically elected government.

Little wonder that certain countries in the Middle East dislike us so much. To make matters more complicated, President Carter in 1979 refused to back up Pahlavi when a revolution overthrew his government, a revolution already hostile to Western imperialist interests. Now we have a hostile government in Iran that holds the United States responsible for their unhappy experiences under the Shah.

This is my personal take on the information Evans provides. Evans wasn’t as critical as I am. However, I remember very well the Iran Hostage Crisis and the hatred of Iranian Ayatollahs ever since. Now I understand why.

Evans also describes the decline of morals in the West and the gradual abandonment of faith in Christianity. He describes the sexual revolution, Playboy mentality, Internet pornography, claiming that 80 to 90% of sixteen-year-olds have already been exposed to pornography on the Internet. He criticizes the idea that all religions are basically the same, and he observes that the word “sin” seems to have been banished from our vocabulary. He’s probably correct in opining that this has weakened the West.

The main thrust in Evan’s book is that Iran, Lebanon, and the Palestine Authority are on the brink of exploding into a Shiite/Sunni revolution that he thinks will spread in the Middle East and has America in its crosshairs. “This is the greatest threat to the United States since the Civil War.” He discusses the war in Iraq. Just when it looked like the Iraqi Shiites might be willing to settle for peace within Iraq, Iran stepped up its influence to make Iraq a major battleground in the war against terror, and Iran stepped up its nuclear program to strengthen their side. Evans appends the full text of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s open letter to President Bush and his open letter to the American people. These two letters present Ahmadinejad’s own words of what he thinks about the United States.

Evans asks: “Can we lose the war on terrorism?” His answer is “We can indeed if we lose the war in Iraq.” Evans argues that the way to victory in Iraq is to curb Iran’s influx of weapons and fighters into Iraq as well as dismantling Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Evans insists that Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power must be stopped.

Evan’s concludes his book pointing out that has given the reader a no-spin understanding of the problem and the solution. Upon re-reading the book, I surmise that the only way to stop Iran’s nuclear program by 2008 (It’s already 2008) is a military attack. This is certainly implied in the book, but it is not specifically stated. Where did I get the impression that Evans recommended a unilateral military attack? I finally found it on the back cover in one of the bullets plugging the book: “The U.S. must strike Iran within the next twelve months, or the next president may be presiding over a nuclear 9/11.” So Evans did make that recommendation.

Given what happened when President Bush took pre-emptive military action to end Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and the political infighting within the United States and the criticism by the news media, I think another pre-emptive military move, besides being considered immoral by many Americans, will meet the same difficulties. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, and the detonation of some of those weapons on American soil actually spreads terror to the American people, every person should realize what comes next. I think Evan’s book ought to be read within those nations who want to proliferate nuclear weapons. Those nations, particularly Iran, face a far greater peril than America if any of those nuclear weapons are misused.

Powered by

About Maurice A. Williams

Williams has written many scientific journal articles and book chapters, and now writes inspirational articles, poems, book reviews, and has written three commentaries on Revelation. Williams has four children and six grandchildren who bring him great pride and joy.
  • The United States is unable to subdue guerrilla elements in Iraq and Afghanistan now. If the Americans provoke the Iranians with an attack, where do the Americans find troops to fight them? Iran is not the starved whipped puppy that the U.S. attacked in Iraq, and in spite of that the Iraqis continue to fight on five years after the invasion of their country. Iran has almost three times the population of Iraq, and they’re well fed, well rested and well armed. Would anyone in the United States welcome another Iraq war in addition to the one they have now? How about another Iraq war times two or three?

    A U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran is out of the question, America does not have the military capability to do that. So any attack on Iran that does not destroy a substantial portion of the country and kill a substantial portion of the population leaves Iran free to respond. Their immediate response would probably be increased arms shipments into Iraq and Afghanistan, increased training to guerrillas in those countries, and covert operations by Iranian special forces groups against American troops in the region. The Iranians have options in addition to that of course.

    The Americans have conceded more than once that their infantry is tired and stretched thin. If Iran enters the fight it would put enormous additional pressure on United States ground forces. No more R&R back to the States for anybody, and it’s likely the American army will be forced to expand its troop levels dramatically, in the hundreds of thousands at least. The U.S. army is barely maintining troop levels now. Where are, to be conservative, let’s say one hundred thousand additional U.S. troops going to come from?

    How many years would a fight with Iran go on? What would be the United States’ definition of victory and an excuse to end hostilities? Since the USA is incapable of invading and occupying Iran, a war with that country could last indefinitely. The Iranians are surely not going to call it quits after an unprovoked attack on their territory by the United States.