Informed Speculation

Thomas Sowell:

It is hard to think of a time when a nation — and a whole civilization — has drifted more futilely toward a bigger catastrophe than that looming over the United States and western civilization today.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea mean that it is only a matter of time before there are nuclear weapons in the hands of international terrorist organizations. North Korea needs money and Iran has brazenly stated its aim as the destruction of Israel — and both its actions and its rhetoric suggest aims that extend even beyond a second Holocaust.

Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.

Richard Cohen:

In his upcoming book about the horrors of the 20th century, “The War of the World,” the British historian Niall Ferguson has a chapter called “The Pity of Peace.” It is about 1938, when World War II loomed, and Britain — especially and importantly Britain — did precious little to stop it. The warnings of Churchill — “believe me, it may be the last chance . . .” — were ignored, and the government under Neville Chamberlain obstinately pursued a policy that forever after made the word appeasement one of the most odious in history. Somehow, though, it looks like 1938 all over again.

The events in the Middle East are often compared to 1914 and the start of World War I. That war — the Great War, the war to end all wars — is actually the all-purpose war. It not only began for what seemed like a trivial reason (the assassination of someone who wasn’t a head of state) but it was fought with tenacity and brutality for what now seems no reason at all. In the end, millions died and the world was utterly changed. Why?

But when it comes to the Middle East, 1938 is also a pretty instructive year. At the moment, the United Nations has committed itself to maintaining peace in Lebanon. It has done so by saying it will interpose an armed force between Israel on the one hand and Hezbollah on the other. At the same time, the Lebanese army will — as it has already started to do — invade its own country (gasp!), securing the south for the first time in decades.

A critical part of that plan is the establishment of the international peacekeeping force. It is supposed to have 15,000 troops, who will join 15,000 Lebanese troops to ensure that Hezbollah is not rearmed with Iranian and Syrian missiles and that Israel not only pulls out of Lebanon but stays out. The backbone of the international force is supposed to come from Europe, particularly France. It was France, in fact, that was most insistent on the establishment of the force.

Now France is having second thoughts . . . or cold feet . . . or mere questions.

Yes, well, counting on the French militarily is like hoping my dog will fix you dinner; it would be a sight to see, but you’ll go hungry before it happens. As far as Iran and the nukes, though, Hitchens had a good point recently (sorry, no link): Iran probably won’t nuke Israel because it would kill too many Palestinians and destroy many holy sites in their religion.

But would Iran hesitate to give a nuke to a terrorist organization that planned to use it on the U.S.? If so, could that organization deliver it?

Those are the kinds of questions that will keep you up all night if you think on them too long. Best not to let Iran into nuclear club to begin with – but North Korea – oh, that’s another problem altogether, seeing as how they’ve already got a handful of nukes, by most accounts…

Sigh…trying times we live in…