In what can only be seen as a diplomatic victory for the U.S., the Russians and Chinese joined the U.S., Britain, France and Germany in agreeing to refer the Iranians to the U.N. Security Council on the issue of their nuclear program. Action by the Council will, however, be deferred until the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issues its complete report in March. This delay, apparently, was a condition imposed by the Russians and Chinese. Still, it gives some indication that, perhaps, the Russians and Chinese won't be willing to shield the Iranians from sanctions. Even though I am not from Missouri, my attitude remains the same...show me.

H.D.S. Greenway sees our options regarding Iran as limited.

A former Israeli intelligence chief says it may already be too late. He believes the Iranians already have the bomb.

Meanwhile, here are some questions for Hamas. Here are some answers from Hamas. Here are some more, even more to the point. I especially like the closing paragraphs;

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

We shall never recognise the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Richard Cohen agrees. We should take Hamas at their word.

Christopher Hitchens thinks this will doom the Palestinian state.

Finally, I will be providing commentary and analysis on the President's State-of-the-Union address tonight on Arnie Arnesen's show on WZMY-TV (the former WNDS-TV) in Derry, NH.

The potential for civil war in the Palestinian Territories just took another step forward. Abu Mazen, the President of the PA, is asserting direct control of the security agencies. Previously, some of those agencies were under the control of the Interior Minister and Prime Minister. Those positions will now belong to members of Hamas when a new government is formed. Hamas leaders have also stated their desire to re-orient the duties of the security forces to make them more aligned with the goals of Hamas. That appears to be unacceptable to the vast majority of security force personnel, almost all of whom are members of Fatah. Will Hamas leaders, upon organizing the new government, demand that the President relinquish control of the security forces to them? If they do not, how long before their new policies conflict with the desires of the Fatah security people, and armed conflict begins?

The New York Times does an extensive piece on the reaction within Iran to the policies of President Ahmadinejad. It makes him look pretty good (but, hey, ask any German who lived under the Nazis and he'll likely say that Hitler did some good things, too).

Fred Barnes recommends to President Bush Frank Gaffney's new book. Gaffney has, for a long time, been advocating that we get real about fighting this war. You know, doing radical things like securing our borders and ending our dependence on Arab/Iranian oil.

Here is a long article by LTC (Ret.) Ralph Peters in the Weekly Standard about what he calls the counter-revolution in military affairs. An interesting and provocative piece. I agree with much of what he writes in the piece, and will probably post a more in-depth analysis of his conclusions at a later date.

Another leader of Hamas is affirming his group's stance regarding Israel...they want it destroyed.

Meanwhile, is it possible that the Jews of 2006 are as blind and stupid as the Jews of the 1930s(the "when a political party says it wants to exterminate you, you should believe them" rule of human relations)? This man-on-the-street article from inside Israel makes me wonder if history might repeat itself.

Some Palestinians are realizing that the secular state of their dreams is fading into an Islamist nightmare.

The Belmont Club is predicting, as I have, that the international community, and maybe even the Israeli government, will continue to fund the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

On Iran, Robert Kagan says its all about regime change, stupid. In San Antonio, Jonathan Gurwitz wonders why people want to ignore insane leaders, rather than taking them at face value, and responding accordingly.

In dealing with Iran and Hamas, too many Western leaders, and their populations, are falling into the same trap that Western leaders and peoples fell into in the 1930s. The face of the threat is so seemingly unreasonable and barbaric, that it can't really be true, can it? If we just ignore them, or treat them as if their unreasonable and barbaric statements were just rhetoric, the crisis will pass and we will enjoy "peace in our time".

The leader of Hamas is, once again, affirming his group's stance on Israel...he wants it destroyed.

This NYT article examines the financial mess that is the Palestinian Authority. Essentially it is a welfare state, with much of its economy predicated on checks cut by foreigners, and much of the rest based on commerce with the Israelis. The ascent of Hamas to power will, in all likelihood, cut off both revenue streams. While Hamas leaders say they will replace the revenue by shifting their economic intercourse to their Arab and Muslim neighbors, and get aid from same, I am skeptical. The most robust economy in that region is Israel's. Commerce with Israel is the only path to real economic prosperity. Still, this could be just what the doctor ordered. Only when the Palestinians realize that Hamas can bring them only military defeat and economic destitution will they finally reject them.

Daniel Pipes says the Hamas victory underscores the difficulty in bringing democracy to the Middle East before defeating the Islamists. The Arab street will continue to vote for the Islamists until they are seen as bringing only ruin with them.

As for Iran, dealing with this critical situation could be a make-or-break policy for the President. Is engagement the right policy? Can the West help internal forces defeat the radicals, like President Ahmadinejad? Unfortunately, the historical parallel that comes first to mind is not an optimistic one. In Germany in 1933 the Nazis came to power behind Adolph Hitler (Iran, 2004, Ahmadinejad). Hitler believed it was his destiny to transform the world, in part by ridding Europe of the Jews. (Ahmadinejad's belief in the return of the Mahdi, his statements about "wiping Israel off the map"). The more conservative elements in Germany thought they could handle Hitler, like former Chancellor Franz von Papen (former President Rafsanjani). Certainly, with President Paul von Hindenburg as the head of state, Hitler couldn't do anything too radical (Grand Ayatollah Khamenei). But, in the year after his assuming the Chancellorship, Hitler began his Nazification of Germany. By the time Hindenburg died, there was no longer any force of consequence in Germany to stop him from consolidating his power. Could we be watching a replay in Iran. Certainly, the article I link to above about internal forces would seem to indicate that Ahmadinejad is consolidating his power. If he really believes it is his duty to foster the return of the Mahdi, and if he has enough people who have joined him in his fanatical vision (as Hitler did), then the possibilities are truly frightening. Only time will tell whether or not the European nations, as well as America, and even the Jews, will follow the 1930s pattern and decide that, well, he just can't really mean what he says, can he? Certainly, we can do business with him, can't we? Certainly, war would be a worse alternative, wouldn't it?

If you want a preview on how most European governments are going to react to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, check out this opinion piece from the Guardian in the UK. The line of reasoning that says the Palestinians exercised their views through a legitimate democratic process and, therefore, those views should be respected and, therefore, EU funding of the Palestinian Authority should continue, irrespective of the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel, will win out. After all, the Europeans argued for decades that the PLO should be recognized as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, even as they were involved in hijackings and murders. They eventually gave the Europeans some cover when they "recognized" Israel's right to exist, something I believe was a lie. Hamas may follow the same route although, as I have written previously, they are less likely to go along as their views are based on ideology and faith.

Emanuele Ottolenghi believes the Hamas victory is very good news.

Here is some analysis on the possible course to be taken by Israel in all of this.

Richard Baehr has some good thoughts on the Hamas victory. Will they pass the Mussolini test?

James Hoagland writes about living with the Hamas victory.

The Washington Times reports that the leader of Hamas will likely steer the PA to disengagement with Israel and the West. I doubt that they will forgo the aid money, but maybe they will surprise me.

Meanwhile, on a related subject, Gerard Baker says we should prepare for war with Iran. I think that would be quite prudent of us, but I won't hold my breath.

HAMAS VICTORIOUS

The terrorist group Hamas has won a resounding victory in the Palestinian Territories. The Fatah Party, which had the governing majority since the creation of the Palestinian proto-state after the Oslo Accords in 1993 will, according to some reports, not be part of the new government.

Here is some analysis of the consequences of this election. More here and here.

In recent weeks representatives of the Israeli and U.S. governments have made it clear that they will not negotiate with a Palestinian government that included Hamas, unless Hamas recognized Israel's right to exist. This the leaders of Hamas have steadfastly refused to do. I see no evidence that there new-found responsibilities will change their minds. Does this mean war? Remember that for many years Israel lived in an uneasy peace with neighbors that did not recognize her right to exist. It is only in recent years that Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan and, to this day, she still has not done so with Syria.

The difference in these situations is, of course, that Egypt, Jordan and even Syria are all governed by secular leaders. This enabled the President of Egypt and the King of Jordan to make peace with Israel, and allows the President of Syria to maintain the status quo. None of these leaders is compelled by their ideology or faith to make unrelenting war on Israel. By contrast, the leaders of Hamas are compelled by their ideology and their faith to do just that. The raison d'etre of Hamas is the destruction of Israel and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Palestine from the Jordan River to the sea. They were not created as a social service agency for the benefit of ordinary Palestinians, although it is that aspect of the organization which has been a large factor in its electoral success. Hamas was created to make war on Israel.

Therefore, while it was possible for Israel to co-exist with its neighbors, even though they did not officially recognize her right to exist, it may very well not be possible for Israel to co-exist with a quasi-state governed by a terrorist group dedicated to her destruction. The ball will now clearly fall into Israel's court. Ehud Ohlmert, who governs now while the old lion Sharon lies in his hospital bed, is faced with perhaps the most difficult decision ever considered by an Israeli Prime Minister. Unfortunately, he does so without the political legitimacy of a Sharon, and while facing the possibility of a nuclear Iran.

I am reminded of a movie called "The Candidate". Robert Redford played an activist taken under the wing of a savvy political operative (played by Peter Boyle) who runs for the U.S. Senate. He wins. After he learns of his victory, in the last line of the movie, he says, "What do we do now"? The leaders of Hamas and Israel are, no doubt, asking that same question today, with perhaps some of the same bewilderment.

IRAN VS. THE WORLD

Here is the latest AP story on Iran (via the Washington Times). It appears that the Iranians are playing for time.

The New York Times has this on the upcoming meeting of diplomats in London to "jaw-jaw" about the Iranian situation.

Meanwhile, the Iranians are busy planning a conference on the Holocaust (via Breitbart.com). They would probably refer to it as the "so-called Holocaust".

Christopher Dickey of Newsweek gives a more detailed account of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to get the Iranians to come clean about their nuclear program. Dickey wants the U.S., E.U. and others to slow down the process to allow the IAEA to generate a complete report in March. He believes it will be a damning report, and it will have more credibility with the international community than any pronouncements by Secretary Rice. He is probably right about that, but his closing comments reflect too much confidence in the efficacy of sanction (which, he writes, will be the subject of his next column).

Tony Blankley lays out the case for why a nuclear Iran is something to be feared.

The pace of events is quickening. Expect the Iranians to continue to play for more time. The IAEA report should be a significant addition to the process. If Dickey is right and it is a damning report, referral to the Security Council for action would seem inevitable. Beyond that, events are hard to predict. The Iranians have made threatening statements about their possible reaction to sanctions imposed by the Security Council, but it is not at all clear that such sanctions would pass. It is likely that any truly vigorous sanctions would either fail to get the necessary votes on the Council, or would be vetoed by one of the Permanent Members.

CLARITY

In politics, the thing that is most to be cherished, in my view, is clarity. This is true for politics in all its forms. Recently, I have been blogging about the statements emanating from Teheran, primarily from the Iranian President. The reason I am so fascinated by this is that I believe, after many years of obfuscation and outright deceit, we are finally seeing the true face of the Islamist movement (at least, in its Shiite Iranian form). If only the leaders of the West can finally be brought to the realization that these statements, and the policies which derive from them, are to be taken literally, then, perhaps, we can begin to hope that Western Civilization has not finally slipped into its last stages of decay. It is a slim hope, I admit, but one I cling to for lack of anything else.

The reason to welcome this new-found clarity is something every adherent to a 12-step program understands. One cannot hope to solve a problem without first admitting that there is a problem. The problem internationally is that Western Civilization, which has been marching triumphally to world domination, at first by military means and, in the last fifty years or so, primarily through economic means, is now faced with a threat that cannot be crushed by armies (as the fascists were in 1945), or outlasted by economic growth (as the Soviets were in 1991). The threat, Islamist Fundamentalism, is as intensely ideological as either Fascism or Communism, but it has something much more powerful than either of those failed ideologies. At its core Islamist Fundamentalism is about faith in God (although twisted into something almost unrecognizable by most people of faith, including most Muslims). Human history records in chapter after chapter that it is faith in God that will drive men to the utmost extremes of good and evil.

The Fascist threat could be dealt with because its power eventually revolved around one man, Adolph Hitler. When he died in his Bunker in Berlin in 1945, his movement died with him. The Communist threat could be dealt with because eventually it revolved around one nation, the Soviet Union. When it died in 1991, the movement died with it. Unfortunately for the West, the death of any one Islamist leader will make little or no difference in the overall progress of the fight. Kill Bin Laden? Great, but so what? There are a million little Bin Ladens out there, maybe more. Even if President Ahmadinejad were to have, shall we say, an "accident" sometime in the next few months, it wouldn't alter the fact that the ideology which drives him lives on in thousands of people in his country, and millions across the Muslim world. The ideology he believes in may be different than that of Bin Laden, but the basic danger remains the same. Each man believes in the supremacy of his God, and they believe that supremacy must be realized here on Earth through violent means. Jihad is the center of the spiritual life of these people (which is why some analysts prefer to call them Jihadists, rather than Islamists). To them, fighting and dying in even an unwinnable war against the West is preferable to watching their societies become more like that of "The Great Satan".

This is clarity. In the Palestinian Territories, the Israelis are getting another dose of clarity with the fulminations of Hamas. For many in Israel, and in the West, it is the clarity of understanding that negotiations and engagement cannot work when tried with people whose God demands that their enemies be put to the sword. Here in the U.S., while for many of us 9/11 was that moment of clarity, perhaps it will require another similar demonstration from our enemies to provide that clarity for so many of my countrymen who chose to return to the world of September 10.

Iranian officials are making belligerent noises once again, warning against referral of their IAEA case to the Security Council. President Ahmadinejad is also courting the Palestinians on his trip to Syria.

The Israelis, meanwhile, are again warning the world that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and hinting of possible military action.

Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.

Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options."

Now, that last bit is VERY interesting. Combined with the recent statement of President Chirac of France about his nation's right to respond to terrorist attacks with nuclear weapons against terror-sponsoring states, this may signal a hardening in the attitudes of European governments. I certainly don't recall any such bellicose statements from anyone other than George W. Bush in the recent past, can you? The German and French governments may, at last, be coming to the realization that there is no other way to prevent either a nuclear-armed Iran or pre-emptive Israeli strikes leading to a general war other than to threaten the Iranians with a combined military assault (U.S, U.K., France, Germany and, perhaps, others). While the bulk of such an assault would, of course, be American, Iran would find itself much more isolated if the major European powers were involved in the operation. If the Russians and Chinese merely avert their eyes, Iran would be faced with the destruction of it's nuclear program (and a significant part of its military infrastructure) without getting any benefit, other than the inevitable anti-American demonstrations throughout the Islamic world. Perhaps the French and Germans now realize that the only way to head all of this off is to present a CREDIBLE threat of such unified action. These statements could mark the beginning of that process.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran is at it again. He says if the Europeans would just open their doors to the Jews, they would leave the Middle East. I suppose he will blame the Europeans when he finds it necessary to enact a "final solution" to the Jewish problem.

Here is another slice of life from the Palestinian territories, courtesy of the Boston Globe. It seems Islamist women are making their mark. They want the equal right to blow themselves up among the infidels. Swell.

The Shiites and Kurds will have to make a deal with the Sunnis to form a government in Iraq. That is very good news. If they can form a government it will mark a significant blow to the insurgency, which is already being weakened by infighting between Iraqi nationalists and Islamists.

The Army is finally beginning to realize the value of teaching counter-insurgency strategies and tactics to its up-and-coming officers. This proves once again that the great German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was right when he said, "No soldier knows less and learns faster than the American soldier".

Speaking of Germans, one German government official has come to the realization that her country will one day be devoid of Germans if they don't start having more babies. She is pushing efforts to encourage procreation. She knows whereof she speaks as she has seven children of her own.

DODGING THE BIG WAR, AND GETTING IT ANYWAY

Here is the latest on Iran. The BBC is reporting that the Iranians want to compromise, but on their terms. They will not stop enriching Uranium, so any deal on those terms is a non-starter with the U.S., and probably the E.U. as well (although I wouldn't be shocked if they wimped out at the last minute). Compromise talk, it seems to me, is designed to give the Russians and Chinese cover to block U.N. Security Council action. They'll say, "look, the Iranians want to negotiate...let's keep talking". This is all designed to drag the process out and give the Iranian scientists (and any foreign advisors they may have) time to perfect a nuclear weapon. Then the Iranians can detonate a device and declare themselves a member of the nuclear club. From that moment on they are immune from U.S. attack (but not Israel).

So, who is to blame for this fiasco? The Democrats, of course, are blaming George W. Bush, and they are not entirely off-base on this on. Certainly, this administration has made their share of mistakes in dealing with Iran, especially after 9/11. But they are not the only ones. I believe that both parties, and every President since Jimmy Carter, has completely fouled this thing up and led us to the fix we are in today.

So, how should they have dealt with Iran? In 1979 Iranian militants, with the clear backing of the new revolutionary government in Teheran, invaded and occupied the U.S. embassy. Under international practice and law, embassy compounds are considered part of the sovereign territory of the nation represented there. Therefore, the Iranian militants invaded U.S. territory and took American citizens hostage, just as if they had landed in Portsmouth, NH, stormed City Hall and taken the officials there hostage. If representatives of a sovereign government, with their backing, invade the territory of another sovereign government, then that is an act of war. President Carter failed in his constitutional duty to go to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war against Iran. His failure was aided and abetted by both parties in Congress, the mainstream media, and elite political opinion in the country. What about John Q. Public? Well, he was mad as hell. He wanted action. He didn't get it. Because he didn't get it, his only resort was, more than a year later, to throw out the incumbent President in a landslide, electing a man who, it was widely believed, would attack the Iranians if they didn't give our hostages back.

Ironically, this new President, didn't need to attack, as the Iranians clearly also believed they were running out of time, and they made a deal with Carter. Even more ironically, President Ronald Reagan fell into the same pattern that enervated Carter several years later. When our Marines were butchered in Lebanon in 1983, that was also an act of war. Yet, no effort was made to identify the people responsible for that outrage, and the government or governments behind them, and, therefore, no retaliation or declaration of war ensued. This pattern continued from outrage to outrage and led directly to 9/11.

Unfortunately, even after 9/11 old habits die hard. No declaration of war was requested by President Bush. No effort was made to identify any governments, other than the Taliban in Afghanistan, that actively supported Al Qaeda, because this would have led inevitably to the Saudis and some of our other "friends" in the Middle East. As in 1979 and 1983 and numerous other times thereafter, our political leads chose small, undeclared wars over a properly declared big war. While this certainly saved lives and property in the short run, it has been absolutely ruinous in the long run. Our weakness led directly to further attacks. Our inability to contemplate a final reckoning with our enemies in the world has only allowed them to multiply. Our best chance was to smash Islamist totalitarianism while it was weak, in 1979 in Iran. The Arab people of the Middle East, while continuing to complain about us concerning our support of Israel, would not have shed many tears over a bunch of nutcase Shiite Persians being put to the sword for having the temerity to attack the U.S. directly. Osama Bin Laden is right about one thing, his people admire and will follow the strongest horse, and despise the weakest.

Today, the situation is becoming untenable. Our mistakes and weakness has led not only to 9/11, but to an even more violent future. There will be a big war, and America will suffer like never before. Unlike World War II, we will not be safe from enemy attack, and we will not enjoy economic growth while the rest of the world burns. Unlike the Cold War, we will not be able to deter the big war by a madman's pact of mutual destruction, and advance our interests and deter the enemy's through a series of smaller wars. This time we face the new Nazis, ideologues who believe so deeply in their creed and destiny that they are willing to pull the trigger to bring on apocalyptic destruction, and the coming of their Mahdi.

For once, I hope I am completely wrong. But I fear I am right.

According to the Boston Globe, the U.S. and the E.U. are moving toward getting the Iranians before the U.N. Security Council on the nuclear question. I'll believe it when I see it. I still think that even if the IAEA votes to send it to the Security Council, the Russians or the Chinese or both will block any meaningful action.

Daniel Drezner has a good roundup of the latest on Iran. I found the link from Instapundit.

Here are two competing views from the UK concerning what to do next with Iran. One from the Guardian and the other from the Telegraph. Read them both. This is the dividing line. We either live with a nuclear Iran, or we do not. But will the Israelis be willing to live with a nuclear Iran?

Jonah Goldberg at NRO says, with tongue-in-cheek, that we need a Saddam in Iran, instead of the religious fanatics who currently hold the reins. At the same site, Michael Ledeen again calls for regime change in Iran, by way of helping those inside Iran who wish to overthrow the Mad Mullahs.

Charles Krauthammer sees the ongoing diplomatic dance as a 'charade'. He is probably right.

I can't see a good outcome in all of this, just some outcomes not as bad as others.

The latest on the Iran nuclear situation has the Russians and Chinese joining the E.U. and the U.S. in demanding the Iranians cease their nuclear activity. While this appears to be cooperation, and to some extent it is, the problem remains that the countries involved have divergent interests. The U.S. is less vulnerable to the economic disruption that would be caused by military action or severe economic sanctions against Iran than the E.U., for example. The Russians have an interest in continuing to do business with Iran at all levels, while the Chinese need ever larger supplies of oil to feed their growing economy. Therefore, it is entirely possible that while they all agree on the referral of the case to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Administration), once that body meets they may not be able to agree to put the case to the U.N. Security Council. In fact, I believe they will not be able to agree on that point (not to mention the other members of the IAEA, like Syria, that will certainly oppose the action). Expect no resolution leading to the Security Council and sanctions.

This situation, of course, is inextricably linked to the political situation in Israel. Arnaud de Borchgrave details the Sharon strategy, and the fallout from his being taken out of the equation. Ariel Cohen, also writing in the Washington Times, describes Sharon's extraordinary life and his significance to the Israeli people. Sharon's strategy of walling off his people from the Palestinians and leaving the Palestinians to find their own way to statehood might have worked, since Sharon had the power and credibility with Israelis to get most of them on the right to accept the fact that the settlers would need to leave some areas, and those on the left to accept the fact that there could never be a negotiated settlement with a Palestinian partner for peace. Without Sharon it is highly unlikely that any Israeli leader will be able to garner a consensus on the Sharon strategy, therefore, it will collapse (my guess is that Benjamin Netanyahu will be the next Prime Minister, and he will be unable to unify the country on the Palestinian question).

All of this may be a moot point. If the Iranians are allowed to build a nuclear weapons capability by the world community, then the Israelis (no matter who is PM) will be forced to act unilaterally with military force. After all, they are the ones being threatened with annihilation by Iran's president. The consequences of that action are unknowable, but chilling to contemplate. This drama will overshadow the other likely, and unsavory, outcome in Middle Eastern politics, which is the coming to power of Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

In fact, if I were the Iranians, I would be prodding my Hamas allies to launch an all-out "Third Intifada" against Israel, shortly after the Palestinian elections next week. The effort would be aimed at fomenting anti-Israeli feeling in the Middle East (as, inevitably, pictures of dead Palestinian children, allegedly killed by the IDF, would dominate television screens in the region and worldwide), and bogging the IDF down in operations to defend their borders and settlements. It might not work, since the IDF's air assets would still be free to organize an air campaign against Iran, but it would cause extra political problems for the Israelis domestically as well as internationally.

As always, George W. Bush is the wild card. While much of the opinion I've been reading recently says he cannot afford to launch a military operation against Iran, for a variety of reasons, I'm not so sure. Would he be willing to aid the Israelis in their air campaign, especially if U.S. forces come under increasing attack in Iraq? Maybe so, especially if he thinks the Iranians government can be decapitated as part of the operation. These are, indeed, interesting times.

Now the Iranians are threatening the West about oil prices. It surely proves once again that, because of our dependence on foreign oil supplies, we are literally being held 'over a barrel', a barrel of oil.

Meanwhile, an interesting development inside Iran. It seems there is a group of Sunni terrorists holding Iranian soldiers hostage, and threatening to behead them. They may be small potatoes at this point, but could provide a method to destabilize the Iranian regime (a dangerous game, I know, but all the other alternatives look as bad or worse).

Finally, go to the Belmont Club for a comprehensive discussion of the situation regarding Iran, with links to numerous articles on the subject.

Here is another article on the religious beliefs that may be driving the President of Iran.

Niall Ferguson, seeing the ominous implications of the Iranian effort to build nuclear weapons combined with European pacifism and American engagement in Iraq, as well as Sharon's departure from the scene, has outlined a scenario called "The Great Gulf War of 2007". It is very plausible, and makes for some scary reading.

Victor Davis Hanson explains the available options concerning Iran, which is moving full-spead ahead on its nuclear program, despite opposition from Europe and the U.S., and possibly Russia and China as well.

Claude Salhani also examines the options.

Richard Halloran says a new nuclear era is at hand.

Even the New York Times is editorializing against the Iranian actions, although they don't believe there are any "realistic military options". Of course, if that is true, then we are just going to have to live with a nuclear Iran, until they strike first.

While the news media is focused on the Alito hearings (and the Dems are shooting blanks, according to Bob Novak), I continue to be focused on the situation in Iran.

Daniel Pipes says that President Ahmadinejad is being directed by a mystical vision, from deep within Shiite theology, regarding the coming of the Mahdi. If Pipes is right, the Hitler analogy continues to grow stronger.

Thanks to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, a new word has entered the political vocabulary: mahdaviat.

Not surprisingly, it's a technical religious term. Mahdaviat derives from mahdi, Arabic for "rightly-guided one," a major figure in Islamic eschatology. He is, explains the Encyclopedia of Islam, "the restorer of religion and justice who will rule before the end of the world."

In a fine piece of reporting, Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor shows the centrality of mahdaviat in Ahmadinejad's outlook and explores its implications for his policies.

When he was still mayor of Teheran in 2004, for example, Ahmadinejad appears to have secretly instructed the city council to build a grand avenue to prepare for the Mahdi. A year later, as president, he allocated $17 million for a bluetiled mosque closely associated with mahdaviat in Jamkaran, south of the capital. He has instigated the building of a direct Teheran-Jamkaran railroad line. He had a list of his proposed cabinet members dropped into a well adjacent to the Jamkaran mosque, it is said, to benefit from its purported divine connection.

Read the whole thing.

John Keegan is worried.

Military action by whatever agency cannot be written out, but will be a last resort. In the meantime, all means short of military action, including economic and political ostracism and economic sanctions, must be tried, together with the building of alternative oil pipelines to bypass the current routes of oil supply down the Gulf. And, of course, the intensification of anti-terrorist measures.

For if the West is considering military action, so are the ayatollahs. They are the sponsors of much of the insurgency in Iraq and suppliers of the insurgents' weapons. They also have intimate links with most of the world's worst terrorist organisations, including al-Qa'eda and Hezbollah. Iranians may well be the missing link for which MI5 is searching behind the July 7 bombings in London.

Moreover, while Iran has its own armoury of medium-range missiles suitable for nuclear delivery, the ayatollahs are also known to favour the placing of nuclear warheads in target cities by terrorists travelling by car or public transport. This is a bad and worrying time in world affairs.

Very ominous, indeed.

A bad back has kept me from posting much over the last couple of weeks. Sitting in the chair for any length of time isn't really possible when your back is aching, as anyone with back pain can tell you. But I'm getting better, so I hope to spend more time on the Internet and writing new posts.

We are entering a very dangerous time in world history. While Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon lies incapacitated in a hospital bed, the Iranians announced that they will resume their Uranium enrichment program, even after receiving a warning from the U.S., the Europeans, and even the Russians and Chinese.

I cannot think of a more dangerous confluence of events. Israel is now feeling even more vulnerable than usual, with an untested leader heading up essentially a caretaker government while the country's leading political figures, minus Sharon, maneuver in advance of the election. With a still-healthy Sharon leading the government and leading his new political party, it was clear that his policies would prevail. Without Sharon, nothing is clear. Meanwhile, a nation headed up by a man who has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel is now resuming work that most believe will lead to nuclear weapons. This is how wars start. Fanatical ideologues who cannot see reality, uncertain leaders who feel their country is threatened with annihilation, potential third-party honest brokers who insist on pretending that nothing has changed, it is all a great big recipe for disaster.

DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY

I don't remember who said it, but I've always believed that it is true, demography is destiny. As a student of history, I believe it is self-evident that nations and peoples rise and fall in part based on whether or not they "go forth and multiply".

Mark Steyn also believes this basic fact about human history, and writes an article that is a must-read if you wish to understand where the world is headed.

When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

Steyn bluntly examines the possible consequences of this demographic shift, and it makes for some scary reading. If you dare, read the whole thing.