The upheaval continues in the Middle East. This week's speech by President Obama fell short of a complete explanation and strategy for the intervention in Libya's current civil war.

In 2004 the Libyan dictator turned his back on development of nuclear weapons. He feared what might happen from America should he develop the ultimate weapon. Remember, this was a year after America led an intervention in Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein. Ghadafi feared the same would happen to him.

Had he proceeded with his plans and developed the bomb, would he have been tempted to use it on his own people in the present uprising? Probably so. There is a reason the dictator has remained in power for more than 40 years.

The hesitant nature of this present intervention by the United States and Europe has not interfered with the risk calculation of the region's nations as they figure the rewards and consequences of their actions.

Iran has proceeded forward with their nuclear plans. In the wake of Egypt's crisis and what is now happening in Syria, they are moving ships and arms through the Suez Canal and into position for future use. Should they sense that America will not act, they could be emboldened to actions that could tip the region into further upheaval.

Michael Oren wrote this week in The Wall Street Journal, "The Iranian regime is the pre- eminent sponsor of terror in the world, a danger to pro-Western states, and the enemy of its own people who strive for democracy. It poses all of these hazards without nuclear weapons. Imagine the catastrophes it could inflict with them" (What if Ghadafi Had Gone Nuclear?" March 29, 2011).

When Iran develops the bomb it will spur other countries to acquire the same. When a future Arab leader feels his position or his country's existence is threatened, what would prevent him from pushing the button? If America's influence in the region has been diminished, from where will arise the moral force to dissuade an action that could ignite a fire larger than anyone can imagine? It is a scary thought.

The fact that America's leadership in the region is changing is reflected in a statement made by Stratfor in a piece titled, "Why Washington is Reluctant to Arm Libya's Eastern Rebels." Commenting on the uncertain strategy of the coalition's intervention into Libya and NATO's involvement, they say, "What the United States really wants out of the Libyan intervention is an opportunity to transfer responsibility for a multilateral conflict to the Europeans" (Stratfor, March 31, 2011).

We look for European involvement in the Middle East to increase. America's lack of leadership in the recent turmoil throughout the region has added to the turmoil that will lead to a new geopolitical map in the region. Bible prophecy shows us a European power will intervene in the region, and Libya is specifically referenced. See Daniel 11:11-43. Any movement of a European based power into the Middle East should be carefully watched. We may well be seeing changes take place that will lead to these prophesied events.

Our booklet, The Middle East in Bible Prophecy, fills in the details. Read it online for a full picture of what lies ahead in this critical region of the world.