The End of Conflict

Is there any possibility of a solution to the constant state of crisis in the Middle East? I don't know. But I do believe that in the near future the crisis will end. And it will not end well.

Thomas Sowell summed up the situation well writing:

What kind of people provide a market for videotaped beheadings of innocent hostages? What kind of people would throw an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise liner into the sea, simply because he was Jewish? What kind of people would fly planes into buildings to vent their hate at the cost of their own lives?

These are the kinds of people we are talking about getting nuclear weapons.

What I fear it will take to bring an end to the constant fighting and terrorism in the Middle East is a conflict on a scale that we can now only imagine in our worst nightmares.

The August 22 deadline for Iran’s response to UN Security Council demands that they end enrichment of uranium passed with Iran issuing a counter proposal for negotiations. Iran clearly has no intention of stopping its development of nuclear weapons, and this latest proposal is nothing more than an effort to stall for time and hold of the likely toothless security council sanctions they face.

No one really knows how close the Iranians are to having a nuclear weapon. The Iranians have repeatedly denied UN inspectors access to key nuclear facilities. However if they think that setting up a bogus round of negotiations that will buy them enough time, they must be close. And if the negotiations manage to come to sort of agreement, it will no doubt be as successful as the agreement that was supposed to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.

Iran will get the bomb, and they will get it soon.

During the cold war the world was spared the horror of nuclear war by the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. The deterrence was based on each side's faith in the other’s rational evaluation of the ramifications of launching a nuclear attack. In the Middle East, the question is will M.A.D. work when one side is mad? I don't think it will.

I don't think Iran wants a nuclear weapon to scare anyone. I don't think Iran wants a nuclear weapon to deter anyone. I think Iran wants a nuclear weapon to kill.

Iran's proxy army in Lebanon waged war by pointing Iranian supplied unguided missiles at Israeli civilian targets and pulling the trigger. When they acquire a nuclear weapon they will use it. I do not think that Israel will hesitate for even the slightest moment to respond. The resulting death and destruction will dwarf anything mankind has done to each other before. The global cost will be beyond estimation.

Perhaps then, if the rest of the world manages not to blow itself up, those who see death, destruction and terror not as not only a means but as an end in itself can be made to understand that there is a better way.

Can this be prevented? The chances are very small. The two nations with the capacity to put an end to Iran's nuclear development, the U.S. and Israel, seem to lack the political will to take the kind of action necessary.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Nuclear, Politics, Terrorism, United Nations

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 03:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment