Should the Clock Be Moved Forward?

In 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists introduced the Doomsday Clock. Alumni of World War II’s Manhattan Project, they used a clock’s imagery to indicate how close the world was to a global thermonuclear war—and the end of civilization as we know it. The clock debuted at seven minutes to midnight.

The minute hand had has moved backwards and forward 13 times since then. The last time was in 2002 when it was moved forward to seven minutes to midnight; it’s starting point at the beginning of the Cold War. Among the many reasons for the move, the Bulletin cited: “. . . too little progress on global nuclear disarmament; growing concerns about the security of nuclear weapons materials worldwide; . . . [and] terrorist efforts to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons. . .”

The clock was designed to bring focus on a global war, not a regional use of nuclear weapons. Perhaps it is time to refocus the clock.

The failure of Israel to disarm Hezbollah this summer and the almost certainly doomed-to-failure international peacekeeping force (reluctantly led by 200 French engineers) has left the Middle East less stable than an any time since the creation of Israel—ironically, in 1947 when the Doomsday Clock was introduced. It has diverted world attention from Iran’s determination to obtain nuclear weapons and the means to use them. It has emboldened the enemies of democracy in the region and shown the terrorists that no matter how they act (as long as Israel is the target), they will be met with sympathetic world opinion.

Worst of all, it has given ammunition to the increasing chorus of voices in the West who believe that Islamic extremists who vow to destroy all who do not convert to their views don’t really mean what they say. Or, if they do, they can be persuaded to change their mind if we are just nice enough.

In this environment, the stage has been set for a series of seemingly unrelated steps to be taken that, when taken together, amount to abandonment of Israel and withdraw of support for democracy in the region.

Tony Blankley, Editor of the editorial page for the Washington Times, outlined how one such a scenario might play out in his column yesterday. I recommend it strongly.

He concluded by saying that the result could be oil at $250 a barrel. I think it could even be worse. It could be a nuclear exchange in the Middle East as Iran—or its agents—use the threat of newly acquired weaponry to gain its objective of destroying Israel and, fighting for its life, Israel retaliates. In that scenario, it won’t matter who used the weapons first. It will only matter that they were used.

Only peace in the region can avoid that. Yet all the attempts to obtain peace through land concessions, economic aid, and accommodations to extremist demands have failed. Each concession seems to wheaten the appetite for more demands.

So, I leave you with a question. What is the true source of instability and violence in the region, the fact that Israel is armed, or that the terrorists are?