The Guns of August, Redux

In 1962 Barbara Tuchman, penned her WWI classic The Guns of August, outlining a brief history leading up to the First World War.

While, the opening line for our present narrative would read a bit differently, the ever provocative Washington Times forces Americans to entertain the notion that America has already entered WWIII.

[Link]

Although it is not as widely circulated as the Washington Post, the Times is in many ways the Post's better looking sister. The difference is seen in the article's quality- written by Washington Times' Editor Arnaud de Borchgrave. Titled Gathering Nuclear Storm, the piece discusses the specter of a nuclear Iran absent U.S. or Israeli intervention. In many ways, it is a similar argument to that put forward by Secretary Rumsfeld earlier today; likening those who would pacify the Islamists to those who would pacify Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

[Link]

What I appreciated about the article is that places the present struggle within the greater context of history. It calls to attention the ramifications of retreat and the personal failure time would note should America lose its resolve and allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Given that history is much more than a 30-second Democrat attack ad and that the President has a very broad view of this moment in history, the article postulates that Bush will inevitably order large-scale airstrikes on strategic targets within Iran to eliminate the threat.

Borchgrave argues that Bush's disdain for popular opinion alone makes the potential conflict more likely. Absent the constraints of poll numbers and re-election, Bush would have little incentive to hold back on so serious an issue. Borchgrave concludes that if the U.S does not act, then the Israelis will citing Israel's new "Iran Command" unit as evidence. The leader of the Israel's Iran Command is also its top Air Force General. No coincidence there.

It could be that Borchgrave is making a mountain out of a molehill.

There have certainly been many other nuclear conflicts which have come and gone from the international stage. The conflict between India and Pakistan being a chief example. Or he could be dead on. I'm inclined to believe the latter given that the mental state of Islamist leadership is anything but rational. According to the Islamists there is no incentive for restraint when the objective is to bow other Nations into submission to Allah. To die in a nuclear war is to usher in the coming victory of the 12th Imam. Suffice it to say, the consequences of a nuclear Iran would be catastrophic for the entire region and for the Nation of Israel in particular.

The guns of August may not be rolling into battle yet. But I think its safe to say that the winds of war have certainly graced their cannons.