The European Court of Human Rights ruled against hanging crucifixes in Italian state classrooms, guided by considerations of “confessional neutrality”. There has been considerable protest in Italy against the decision, and in itself the uproar is somewhat encouraging. It’s important, however, to examine what was said against the ruling.

Minister of Education Maria Stella Gelmini stated rather defiantly, “No one, not even some ideologically motivated European court, will succeed in rubbing out our identity.” That’s a decent start. But another Berlusconi colleague by the name of Claudio Scajola had this to say:

“Preventing [the crucifix] from being displayed is an act of violence against the deep-seated feelings of the Italian people and all persons of goodwill.”

Scajola is correct that the ECHR decision is a willful act that can at least theoretically be enforced by the coercive machinery of the state. Yet his statement, representative of much of Italy, is based mainly on sentimentalism. Many Italians rightly take issue with the removal of symbols of their religion and culture from public life, a phenomenon accompanied by mass immigration from the Third World and the imposition of multiculturalism. Feelings, though, do not provide us with a coherent orientation for counteraction.

We who look to uphold, or more accurately, restore tradition in the beleaguered West must seek out the source of its value. Crosses in classrooms are only its most external form. A symbol can be emptied of meaning or perverted in the absence of its spiritual context. Any lasting success in the defense of Christianity in our lands will necessitate a rejuvenation of faith and its intellectual framework. The integrity of a culture and a people’s place in the universe all stem from their relation to the transcendent.

Remaining corralled within the modern pluralist mindset simply won’t do. Invoking “rights” guaranteed by a political document is a futile gesture in a rigged game.  Appeals to religious freedom, as administered by the human rights regime, form a trap into which too many of the well-meaning fall. An editorial piece from L’Osservatore Romano demonstrates this quite well:   

“The political world has almost unanimously testified to the lack of common sense in this ruling, reiterating that the secularization of institutions is a value quite distinct from the denial of the role of Christianity…”

In actuality the ECHR ruling shows that secularization of institutions and denial of the role of Christianity are but two closely related facets of the same campaign. The overriding goal of the Enlightenment project is to tear us away from God, to glorify man and man alone, subject only to his reason, will and passions. More specifically, the secular agenda advanced for the past few centuries has been premised upon the liquidation of Christianity and its transformation into a private matter worthy only of public ridicule.

The ultimate objective of all this is not simply to rid courtrooms and schools of the crucifix, but to erase Christ’s image in the hearts of men. Any truly effective strategy of counteraction will be rooted in spiritual resistance. No stranger to modern totalitarianism, the Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin succinctly expressed the nature of this battle:

“Да будет ваш меч молитвою, и молитва ваша да будет мечом!”

- Let your sword be prayer, and your prayer be a sword!

Fyodor Dostoevsky has rightly been called a prophet of the modern age. With a depth of vision unrivalled, he saw that cultural, political, and economic disorder have their main source in the crisis of the spirit.

Dostoevsky foresaw how man’s rebellion against the Transcendent would progressively accelerate into full-blown anarchy. In The Possessed, he was particularly attentive to show us the spiritual corruption of the ruling class, the so-called “conservative” elements of society. Dostoevsky wrote about Russia, but he was also deeply sensitive to the West’s descent into secularism.

Parties like the Republicans and the Tories have done nothing to arrest the decline of our societies because they ultimately share the same radical, anti-traditional principles of the Left. For evidence, look no further than Britain’s rapid transformation into a crime-ridden, multicultural surveillance state otherwise known as “Cool Britannia”, or at the mass of contradictions in the program of the new Edmund Burke Institute in Washington, DC (Richard just recently addressed both examples). 

If one holds fast to the ideals of modernity, if one’s faith in sacred Progress, Equality, Democracy, Total Individual Autonomy, etc. is unshaken, opposition is meaningless and purely cosmetic. Rhetorical nods to cultural consolidation are articulated within the corrosive framework of Enlightenment rights ideology, and only for the purpose of grabbing votes. The conservative movement knows what’s really important: generous contributions from the financial and defense industries to maintain policies of corporate centralization and overseas empire.

The mainstream Right has led the West to systemic cultural collapse in full collusion with the slightly more radical Left. The Possessed reveals the spiritual and intellectual dimensions of this long process. A conversation between the story’s provincial governor, Von Lembke, and the nihilist revolutionary Peter Verkhovensky nicely encapsulates the mentality and path of modern conservatism (translation is mine):

“We have responsibilities, and as a result we also serve the common cause as you do. We are only holding back what you loosen and what without us would scatter in various directions. We’re not your enemies; hardly so. We’re saying to you: go forward, make progress, even shatter, that is, everything that is subject to alteration; but when needed, we will keep you within the necessary boundaries and save you from yourselves, because without us you would only send Russia into upheaval, depriving her of a proper appearance, and our duty is to look after proper appearances. Understand that you and I are mutually necessary to each other. In England Tories and Whigs also need each other. Now then, we’re Tories, and you’re Whigs…”

“Well, however you like it,” murmured Peter Stepanovich. “Nevertheless you are paving the way for us and preparing our success.”

Strip away the concern for proper appearances, and it becomes clear that modern conservatism is the handmaiden of revolutionary nihilism.

Joe Biden is truly Dick Cheney’s worthy successor- between them, there’s no substantive difference on foreign policy. In Bucharest, the Vice President exhorted regional allies to help their struggling brethren in Eurasia achieve the shining dream- the only legitimate dream a nation is permitted- of “flourishing” democracy.

“You can help guide Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine along the path to stability and prosperity,” he said, adding there was also “much work to be done in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Belarus.”     

As Biden made clear, the US is not abandoning its plans for dominating the post-Soviet space. Rather, there will be a shift in emphasis, as Washington expects its East European allies to do more heavy lifting in the realm of covert action and political operations on Russia’s periphery.

Romania’s likely support of post-election demonstrations in Moldova earlier this year provides an example of what the White House has in mind. Moldova’s corrupt Communist government in Kishinev was besieged by protestors demanding union with Romania. The unrest was well-coordinated through Twitter (an episode that would later be repeated in Iran, with overt backing from State). It is already well known that Western “civil society” NGOs train their local assets in the exploitation of information technologies with regime change as the end goal.

With the context of Romanian activity in Moldova, Biden’s speech highlighted the administration’s expectations for the East Europeans. Countries like Romania and Poland will act as the launch pad for efforts to undermine Moscow’s zone of interests.

“You delivered on the promise of your revolution. You are now in a position to help others do the same.”

Nations such as Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, congratulated by the Vice President for their embrace of modern Western norms, typically gravitate into the orbit of the current hegemon on the continent. The experience of the twentieth century is helpful- before these countries joined NATO, they had been part of the Warsaw Pact. Prior to the Cold War, their armies were fighting with the Axis. Washington’s immediate geopolitical agenda concerns gaining control of energy transit routes from the Caspian that would feed into Europe, and its local allies are tasked with their specific roles in the project. 

Beyond all these maneuvers for advantage in the Great Game is their ultimate source- the ideological driver of liberal internationalism. The US remains a revolutionary power devoted to remaking the world in its own image; like the content of countless other speeches, Biden’s words reflect this desire.

I appreciate Devin Reid Saucier’s expansion on amor fati and life-affirmation written in reference to the earlier discussion on paganism and Christianity, and I’m happy to make my response.

Nietzsche quite correctly did write for “higher men”. As Henri de Lubac said, he appeals to man’s inclination to greatness. His seduction to untruth is so powerful for this reason- nobility is elevated beyond its station, and overweening pride surges into rebellion against the Creator. Nietzsche’s emphatic affirmation of this world is an effective restatement of the words first uttered by another creature noble and beautiful, an angel: non serviam. This is the rejection of the Word, the Reason for any and all existence in favor of self-will and self-love.

Men who have abandoned God cannot “create their own meaning” from the resulting chaos and absurdity. Ignoring or rising against Truth and ultimate meaning, they only fashion illusions, clinging to earthly “vitality” to block out the horrors of unavoidable death. Greek tragedy and myth were a response to life’s mysteries that contained a consciousness of supernatural realities, a consciousness not lost but refined by Socrates and Plato. Nietzsche isolated himself from cosmic order. Against it he willed the reign of absurdity and incoherence, as described in his Parable of the Madman:

How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?…God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

In an attempt to overcome the nihilism of the age, he exalted the pagan love of fate. No simple return to ancient ways would do, though, since any reality beyond this world was negated. Nietzsche held forth the vision of the Superman, the quest to become a god. Nothing less could be required of man alone in the universe:

“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?...Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Divinity, however, is only possible in eternity. What lasting joy could come from the superhuman state if all are still condemned to total annihilation? Nietzsche would attempt to reconcile being to becoming through the doctrine of eternal return. This idea is far more than “a reason for living life to its fullest in a world devoid of the supernatural”. Nietzsche’s mystical experiences at Sils Maria and Rapallo attest to his search for immortality of the soul. The divine could not be allowed to stay a phantom of the mind; man would be divine and not merely love fate, but master it.

The “murder” of God is followed up by an elemental lie. Nietzsche bequeathed the world the will to illusion, hoping that “life-giving” myths summoned by the chosen few could replace man’s longing for the Transcendent. Every magnificent turn of his genius was nonetheless rendered impotent in the face of mortality. What life can there be in a kingdom where death is master, where men hurtle toward nothingness?

Nietzsche’s entire war to overthrow the Crucified One, all the streams of fevered blasphemy flowing from the gospel of nihilism, were in vain. Only Christ, the God-Man, frees us from the bonds of fate. In His resurrection we discover the triumph of Love over death.

Last month, the Obama administration had backed away from deploying antimissile defense systems in Central Europe. Naturally, this move was deemed spineless appeasement before the Tsarist power by all the right people on the editorial pages of the WSJ and Washington Post. But such a policy decision would simply be too sensible; other factors were at work. As I then noted:

While the administration’s announcement may have cast a sinister shadow on the catered luncheons of think-tanks in our nation’s capital, the disturbance will pass. Obama’s team has said nothing of respecting legitimate Russian concerns in its sphere of interests. Secretary of Defense Gates spoke mainly of repositioning and optimizing anti-missile architecture. This new initiative would likely include sites offshore and in southeastern Europe, with the possibility of system deployment somewhere in the Caucasus. Global democracy enthusiasts should take heart; they can still look forward to a potential standoff with Russian forces in the Black Sea basin.

 
Surprise! The Pentagon might be considering placing a radar facility in Ukraine as part of its new anti-missile defense architecture. Alexander Vershbow, former ambassador to Moscow and now the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, announced yesterday that officials in Kiev had expressed interest in joining the project.

Who might these “officials” in Kiev be? It’s a safe guess that any probe for stationing US forces in Ukraine came from President Viktor Yushchenko’s administration. Yushchenko, who is stridently anti-Russian, would be just the man to make such an offer*. However, the leader of the Washington-scripted Orange Revolution has limited time, and his room for maneuver keeps shrinking. Presidential elections are slated for January 2010, and Russia has been influencing the process to its advantage. Yushchenko’s statesmanship has led to approval among the Ukrainian population in the low single digits. He is effectively blocked from taking effective action by other factions in the Rada (parliament), including that of the mercenary Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko and pro-Russian regional leader Viktor Yanukovich.

Yushchenko has attempted to compensate for this weakness through posturing in defense and foreign policy. The Ukrainian security services and military have attempted to impede the operations of Moscow’s Black Sea Fleet, which has led to additional tensions. The presidential administration makes continual noise about the end of Russia’s basing contract for Sevastopol in 2017 and just held exercises to suppress a “rebellion” in the Crimea a day after the Russians completed theirs. Yushchenko seems determined to make historically and ethnically Russian Crimea, Khrushchev’s frivolous gift to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954, a flashpoint with the Kremlin.

DOD then backtracked on Vershbow’s statement, saying it only spoke generally of radar facilities in the region. This isn’t terribly convincing- Vershbow is the former US ambassador to Russia, and he knows what to say and when to say it. No matter the origin of the proposal, it is clear that Washington is still set on a course of confrontation. One likely calculated aspect of the announcement is its intended psychological effect: the Obama administration is trying to pressure Moscow into acquiescing to its plans for Iran. The Russians didn’t consider September’s US decision against deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic any kind of grand bargain, and correctly so. The US continues its policy of encroachment in the Russian sphere of interests, from Kiev to Tbilisi and Ashkhabad.

Our foreign policy elites apparently learned nothing from last year’s Georgian war. They will no doubt be aflame in indignation when the Kremlin takes countermeasures to secure its own neighborhood, especially strategically and culturally vital Ukraine. The national security establishment is simply too invested in provoking Moscow to consider the dangers of such a reckless approach.

*Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta reports that Yushchenko announced that Ukraine has received no US proposals. It’s a roundabout way of saying that Kiev initiated the offer, which may just give Washington some cover of deniability. 

Thanks to Richard, Christopher Lyons and Tom Piatak for their responses in the discussion on Christianity, paganism and the West. There are just a few points I’d like to focus on.

First of all, as Richard points out, there undeniably existed a pagan sense of the sacred. Their ancient religions and folkways indicate a fragment of primordial wisdom as well as their aspiration to the Transcendent. This also reflects a consciousness of levels of supra-human reality, and acknowledgement of order to the Cosmos. Mankind’s encounter with the sacred, however, could only be fulfilled through the revelation of Truth in the form of Christ.

While having excellent pagan sensibilities, there was a crucial difference between Nietzsche and his Germanic ancestors. The “philosopher with a hammer” negated the divine and set upon a quest for divinity by his will alone. Seeking to take the human relation to fate a step further than the pagan heroes, he shifted their amor fati (“love of fate”) into ego fatum (“I am fate”) in his doctrine of eternal return, his own search for immortality and godhood. Nietzsche sensed that a simple return to the old pagan wisdom could never suffice; he knew that Christ’s entry into history had transformed the life of the spirit, and he chose to set himself in most ferocious opposition to Him. The entire teaching on slave morality, even in light of Nietzsche’s brilliant formulations, stems from the desire to overthrow Christ, to be Antichrist. 

Nietzsche rejected Logos, Truth and any objective truth. In doing so, no matter his intuition of the sacred, he dragged transcendence down wholly into the confines of this world. Metaphysical reality is effectively denied. His search for exalted, superhuman states would be brought to the level of a cruel animalism. The war cry of “only the earth!” ushered in the earthly reign of futility and absurdity.

Finally, Belloc’s identification of the continent with Christianity is far from an assertion of ethnocentrism in religious trappings. It is a reflection on Europe’s fate, bound forever to the faith. Belloc saw Truth as universal: each individual nation, whether of Christendom or the Global South, has its role to play in the cosmic order, ultimately oriented toward the glorification of its Creator.

Faith cannot be reached by pure intelligence alone; it is truly a matter of the heart’s receptivity to the divine message. Either one sees the utter incoherence of the world and flails in meaningless rebellion, or one believes in the miraculous and aligns one’s will with higher Love and higher Reason. Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat. 

Christopher Lyons makes his arguments for a robust pagan West throwing off the yoke of Christianity, a theme Richard had recently made mention of. I’ll try here for a gracious response.

It’s worth starting on a point of agreement. Much of Western Christianity, especially mainstream Protestantism, has indeed been reduced to mere sentimentalism and politically correct social work.  This, however, has nothing to do with the essence of the faith; it is a falling away from faith in a new, distorted and spiritless form amenable to modernity. It is a logical consequence of the separation from tradition, authority and doctrine. Modern civilization itself is rooted in Gnostic heresies that arose first within the Church and later wholly outside it, leading to the cultural triumph of secularism.

Regarding the “ascetic slave morality that characterized Christianity’s origins”, Lyons would not allow for a rejection of this world and its works. This quintessentially pagan embrace of the fallen world, a love of fate (Nietzsche’s amor fati) derives from indifference, if not hostility, to supernatural truth. Yet we must face what we can apprehend of the beginning and the end of things—granted by divine revelation to the human heart. There is an answer to the question, “Why?” and Truth is attainable. Asceticism, derided as “salvation through death,” is actually the highest form of struggle and ascendance to higher existence.

Contrary to the author James Russell’s assertion that Christianity was transformed by its encounter with Europe, the faith was the providential crowning of its peoples’ historical development. The external character of the religion changed in certain ways, but the purity of Christ’s message was successfully transmitted. The gift of the Gospel to the Indo-European tribes was more ennobling than those who echo Zarathustra’s cry of “only the earth!” could ever fathom. As Dostoevsky stated, if there is no immortality, no life or love after death, everything is permitted.  Not only that; everything is absurd. The rise of Christianity on the continent brought Europeans into communion with Truth, meaning and order.

The aesthetics and ethos of the classical and Nordic pagan cultures had a vitality absent from the mechanization and mediocrity of contemporary civilization. In the ways of our pagan ancestors there was a measure of wisdom that nonetheless falls far short of the fullness of Truth and Love bestowed by the Galilean so despised and ridiculed by the world. Men now choose or reject salvation in freedom.

The stoicism of the ancients and their sense of life’s tragedy were admirable, but ultimately futile. For all the talk of life-affirmation and vigor, a revival of paganism offers only spiritual death. Christ’s entry into the world changed everything- the “pauper” is Pantokrator, and every knee shall bend before Him. 

Long before a society is seemingly swallowed by disorder, there begins a rebellion in the hearts of men. A course taken in the spiritual realm will eventually manifest itself externally in everyday life. The decadence, intellectual and otherwise, of the French aristocracy would lead to 1789, and the same process made St. Petersburg an easy target for mass uprisings and a Bolshevik coup. Fyodor Dostoevsky illustrated well how nihilism is a state of the soul, and the external chaos that rises in its wake is merely a contingent effect of the negation of Transcendence.

In The Possessed, Dostoevsky lets us in on a discussion between the provincial governor Von Lembke and the young revolutionary Peter Verkhovensky (owning only the Russian version, the translation is mine):

Von Lembke remembered his recent conversation with Peter Stepanovich. With the innocent goal of disarming him through liberalism, he showed him his own intimate collection of all possible proclamations, Russian and from abroad, which he had carefully gathered from 1859, not as an enthusiast, mind you, but just out of a useful curiosity. Peter Stepanovich, having guessed his intention, crudely expressed that in one line of such proclamations there was more reason than in any entire chancellery, “not excluding yours, by the way”…

“But it’s too early for Russia, too early,” he pronounced almost pleadingly, pointing to the manifestos.

“No, it’s not; so you’re afraid, then, that it’s not early.”

“But here, for example, a call for the destruction of churches.”

“And why not? After all, you’re an intelligent man, and of course you yourself don’t believe in God, but you understand all too well that faith is necessary to control the people. The truth is more honest than a lie.”

“Agreed, agreed, I agree with you completely, but it’s still too early for this country,” frowned Von Lembke.

When man closes his sight to Heaven, seeking paradise here and now, any means to achieve this end are acceptable. The French and Russian revolutions are obvious examples of this: the blood of the slain will fertilize the soil of the New Earth.

It is important to note, however, that the Anglo-Saxon dimension of the rebellion against traditional order cannot be diminished. It has been subtler, but nonetheless just as far-reaching. The dominant form of “conservatism”, derived from the thought of Edmund Burke, has actually allowed a relatively seamless passage to the highly unnatural state of affairs we observe today. Tradition, man’s relation to the Transcendent, is jettisoned in favor of mere hollow “custom”, which will then inevitably be employed as a tool of subversion.

Governor Von Lembke’s pathetic plea for additional time for Russia to reach a more enlightened state is met with derision by Verkhovensky. The younger man’s contempt is justified: having embraced the principles and worldview of the revolution, the learned men of officialdom are only calling for a slower and smoother descent into its madness. Dostoevsky’s passage describes the spiritual and cultural disposition of Russia’s governing class in the 1870s, but it applies just as well to the GOP and today’s allegedly conservative establishment.

Andrew Bacevich has provided us incisive critiques of the Long War, but his latest policy prescriptions have turned out to be less than helpful. Dr. Bacevich’s Washington Post op-ed (hat tip to Daniel McCarthy) adheres to modern universalism without any notion that it is at the base of our problems.

The competitive challenge facing the West is not to prove that Islamic fundamentalism won’t satisfy the aspirations of humanity, but to demonstrate that democratic capitalism can, even for committed believers.

Democratic capitalism can satisfy the aspirations of those who fervently believe in … democratic capitalism. Like the great majority of his contemporaries, Bacevich views economic solutions as all-encompassing. He treats today’s struggle between the West and the Islamic world as a matter analogous to the Cold War competition between the market and central planning. This places the entire affair on the material plane, as if consumer products, good sanitation and clean elections can fill, in Pascal’s words, the God-shaped void in man’s heart.

Bacevich’s conception of containment neglects Islamic doctrinal imperatives such as da’wah (the conversion of the world to Islam) and jihad (holy war). These factors are ignored as well by our secular elites, who entertain a fanciful vision of an Islam conforming to their own prejudices. Instead they continue to encourage the mass immigration of Muslims into the West, thereby heightening the risk of conflict. Such policies are based on the crudely simplistic attitude best summarized as “everyone wants the same thing,” with George W. Bush waxing eloquently about Iraqi soccer moms or Obama speaking of technological advancement in Cairo. Liberal democracy has not brought peace, but rather has led to both Muslim ghettoes in the West and Western counterinsurgency in the Muslim world.

Is it really so difficult to posit that the likelihood of massive disorder is corresponding to the growth of populations religiously, culturally and ethnically dissimilar in Western countries? Staying silent about the issue of immigration and persisting with interventions in the Islamic world, no matter the proposed lighter footprint, hardly makes Bacevich different from the other commentators on the Post’s op-ed page.

It is to be expected that the media and other elites will not acknowledge the centuries-long spiritual catastrophe of Western man’s abandonment of belief in Christ for the worship of reason, progress, and other totems of the Enlightenment. This empty faith in modernity’s power to transform humanity and the world will only lead our nations further toward the abyss. 

The multiplayer game afoot over Iran has grown more tense and complex in recent weeks. The Israelis, who continue to publicize their threat to strike Iran’s nuclear program, have been pushing Russia to refrain from sales of S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Teheran. This matter was certainly high on the agenda of both Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu, who have both made rather impromptu visits to Moscow over the past month.

The high-level meetings may have dealt with the pirate adventure of the Arctic Sea, a Maltese-flagged ship that many in the media have speculated was carrying S-300 components bound for Iran and interdicted by the Israelis. A storm of leaks, assertions and misinformation has resulted from the mystery, with each side emitting multiple conflicting signals. The ship was likely hauling much more than lumber, due to the considerable assets Russia deployed to track and seize it off of Cape Verde. Regardless of what actually happened with the Arctic Sea, the incident showcased Tel-Aviv’s anxiety about the S-300 missile complex.

Were the Russians to supply the S-300 to Iran, the potential success of an Israeli air strike would be reduced considerably, and the Pentagon would have to re-examine its own plans as well. The Israelis have been pushing hard for Moscow to freeze any missile sale, but there are a number of factors that would have to be addressed for the Russians to cooperate.

The Kremlin is likely demanding that Israel adjust its behavior in the former Soviet space. The Israelis maintain security relationships with the Georgians, Ukrainians, and Azeris. Israeli intelligence activity in the Caucasus and Ukraine, along with weapons sales and specialized training, is not looked upon kindly in Moscow. From these republics Mossad not only runs operations against Russia, but also keeps tabs on the Iranians.

The appointment of a veteran Mossad officer to the ambassador’s post in Turkmenistan makes clear Tel Aviv’s priorities in the former Soviet Union. Reuven Dinel, expelled from Russia in 1996 for espionage, is widely expected to concentrate on Iran and monitor the Teheran-Moscow relationship. His appointment comes, perhaps also not incidentally, only four months after Russia announced that Kazakhstan would acquire the S-300 antiaircraft system.

It will take more, however, than just the Israelis scaling back their activity in Russia’s backyard for Moscow to rethink arming Iran. Putin and Medvedev point to a more comprehensive solution requiring US understanding on a Russian sphere of interests. No such appreciation of Russian concerns in Washington has been forthcoming.

As George Friedman observes, we could be approaching a moment of danger. The “crippling” gasoline sanctions Obama has promised Tel-Aviv in the event of Iranian non-compliance with Western demands can be short-circuited by the Russians and Chinese. Moscow and Beijing have no interest in assisting Washington on Iran.

At this point, seeing US possibilities exhausted, Netanyahu might gamble on carrying out a strike and expect the US to fall in line. Such an expectation is altogether warranted, given the amount of influence AIPAC & co. exercise openly or otherwise on the White House and Congress. Regardless of Obama’s personal preferences, there are plenty of people in his administration (such as Biden and Clinton) who would readily support an Israeli attack in the near future.

Another drive to pre-emptive war seems to be taking place before our eyes. It is apparently too much to expect that those who blindly press forward should have at least some slight notion of the disasters that await them beyond the threshold.