WW3: Armageddon?
The U.S. and Russia are reviving the Cold War. Russia upped the ante by threatening to sell the S-300 to Iran. This would essentially force Israel's hand. Israel would need to strike Iran before this air-defense weapon went into service.
Israel sees a need to preemptively stop Iran's nuclear goals, specifically "enriching" uranium to levels necessary for nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly asserted the intent to commit a nuclear first-strike against Israel were it to gain such capabilities. Being as small as it is, Israel could not withstand even a single such detonation, even a small one, without being wiped off the map as Iran and most Muslims worldwide desire. This puts Israel in the difficult position of striking first. In contrast to Iran, Israel has no plans to strike with nuclear weapons but wishes only to stop the centrifuges used to "enrich" uranium.
Russia is using its alliance with Iran, America's present nemesis, as a way of enforcing its will in its own neighborhood. The U.S. wants to see Georgia, the Ukraine, Poland, and other former Soviet states brought into a pro-Western alliance. These nations are also interested in American defensive capabilities, including anti-missile batteries, not to mention the NATO defense alliance. They say they wish to defend themselves against the likes of Iran, but I suspect they also wish to avoid being re-annexed into a second Soviet empire. Russia's recent foray into Georgia obviously proves their ability to do so and quite possibly their intent, the ostensible protection of separatists notwithstanding.
The global networks of alliances are obviously reminiscent of that which brought the whole world into The Great War, World War I. The "resolution" of the Cold War, essentially Soviet bankruptcy, is passing for Russia, thanks in large part to American funding of our former enemy's recovery. Differing ideologies remain (accepting the fact that they differ only in nuances of socialism, ironically), and the competition over global resources remains (worse, in fact). It seems unlikely the Cold War won't restart given the coming equalization of power between strengthening Russia and weakening America.
What's different in the coming Cold War II is Israel and her ever more powerful, genocidal neighbors. On the other hand, these look similar to the Ottoman Empire though presently less organized. The Islamic philosophies are essentially the same. Hmmm... Maybe things aren't so different this time, after all--just a greater confluence of WWI, WWII, and Cold War traits.
Could things be shaping up for Armageddon? I mean, could WW3, which seems increasingly imminent, be the war of the end times? I must confess, I'm excited about the possibility. No, I don't desire war and all that it implies. It will suck for pretty much everybody. However, lasting peace can only be found on the other side of this prophesied war. If WW3 is to be this prophesied war, then lasting peace is just one world war away, as opposed to more than one.
Trackback URL for this post:
Russia and Iran
Russia is rushing (couldn't resist) to finish Iran's heavy-water nuclear reactor by year's end. A heavy-water reactor does not need enriched uranium, but weapons grade plutonium (Pu) will be produced as a byproduct. Providing a Pu-producing reactor would be a huge bribe from Russia to Iran, too--a kind of assurance that Muslim terror is very unlikely in Russia.
Given a Pu-producing heavy-water reactor as well as thousands of centrifuges for "enriching" uranium, it would seem that large-scale nuclear weapons production is a very near and achievable goal for Iran.
I'd have to imagine this
I'd have to imagine this puts additional pressure on Israel to bomb this power plant (and the thousands of centrifuges) soon. With Israel's leadership in turmoil, timing couldn't be much worse.
Stakes are raised
U.S. and Russia increase posturing around the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf.


U.S. Culpability
I named the U.S. as a partner in reviving the Cold War with Russia. Why? We're meddlers. We meddle in everybody's affairs. We have troops in 175 countries (out of a possible, estimated 195--the total keeps changing). We cannot remain silent on any foreign matter, no matter how far removed from national interest it may be (e.g., the recent separatists' actions in Georgia and the subsequent, Russian invasion ostensibly to protect those separatists).
Our nation began with this foreign policy:
We would be wise to return to it.
Had we a nonintervention foreign policy, we would not care about the troubles in the Middle East, for example. The only care we could possibly have there is the oil, but we have plenty of oil right around our home were we so inclined to get it (not to mention alternatives). Avoiding entanglements with nations bent on killing us (i.e., Muslims) would have served us well in many ways.
Removing our interest in the Middle East, the former Soviet bloc, Africa, the EU, and the Far East, we could have our troops stationed along our borders, protecting us from foreign invasion and illegal migration, backing up private land owners. We could theoretically have no enemies abroad. We could have free trade with any nation, implicitly promoting capitalism and Western (Biblical, as they once were) values without coercion.
If we stopped our meddling ways, the Cold War likely never would have occurred in the first place, and it certainly would not be revived.