We have all the time in the World?

If only we did, and those of us who remember this great Song by the "Satchmo" - Louis Armstrong - wax very nostalgically for the time it was recorded.

People into Heavy Metal Music might feel the same about when Iron Maiden did their tremendous 1980's Song "2 Minutes to Midnight".

Why?

Because even the latter reminds us of a time when things felt a lot safer. (If that was possible)

To measure how close we are to a combination of Nuclear and other Catastrophes People refer to something called the Doomsday Clock.

The Doomsday Clock: Measuring Humanity’s Risk

The Doomsday Clock is one of the most famous symbols of humanity’s vulnerability to global catastrophe. It was created to warn the public about dangers that could threaten civilization and, potentially, human existence itself. Although it looks like an ordinary clock, its hands do not measure hours and minutes. Instead, they represent how close experts believe humanity is to a hypothetical “midnight”—the point of global catastrophe.

The Origins of the Doomsday Clock

The Doomsday Clock was created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an organization founded by scientists who had become deeply concerned about the consequences of nuclear weapons.

The idea emerged shortly after the Second World War, when the world had witnessed the destructive power of atomic bombs. Scientists who had worked on or been associated with nuclear research recognized that humanity had entered a new and dangerous era. Nuclear weapons could now potentially destroy entire cities and cause unprecedented global devastation.

Artist Martyl Rees designed the original clock for the cover of the Bulletin. Its hands were positioned at seven minutes to midnight. The image was intended to communicate urgency: humanity was living dangerously close to disaster.

What Does the Clock Mean?

Midnight on the Doomsday Clock represents a metaphorical point at which humanity faces catastrophic consequences. The closer the minute hand is to midnight, the greater the perceived danger.

However, the clock is not a scientific instrument that predicts the future. It does not tell us that catastrophe will happen at a particular time. Instead, it is a symbolic assessment made by experts who consider major threats facing humanity.

Over the decades, the scientists behind the clock have considered several different dangers, including:

• Nuclear weapons and nuclear war
• Climate change
• Biological threats
• Emerging technologies
• Artificial intelligence and other rapidly developing technologies
• International conflicts and political instability
• The spread of misinformation and the weakening of institutions

The factors considered have changed as the world itself has changed.

The Clock During the Cold War

Nuclear weapons remained the central concern during much of the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union accumulated enormous nuclear arsenals, while political tensions between the two superpowers created the possibility of a devastating confrontation.

In 1953, after both countries developed increasingly powerful thermonuclear weapons, the Doomsday Clock was moved to two minutes before midnight—the closest it had been to catastrophe at that time.

The clock later moved farther from midnight during periods of reduced tension. For example, improvements in relations between the United States and Soviet Union contributed to the clock being set back during the 1970s.

This history demonstrates that the clock is not permanently moving toward midnight. Its position can change in either direction depending on the circumstances of the world.

Beyond Nuclear Weapons

Although nuclear war remains an important concern, the Doomsday Clock eventually came to represent a broader range of global dangers.

Climate change, for example, became increasingly important as scientists documented rising global temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and increasingly severe environmental risks. The clock's message therefore expanded: humanity's survival depends not only on avoiding war but also on managing the consequences of technological and environmental change.

In recent years, advances in artificial intelligence and biotechnology have also raised new questions. These technologies can provide enormous benefits, but experts have debated how to manage their potential risks and prevent powerful technologies from being misused.

Why Is the Clock Important?

The greatest importance of the Doomsday Clock may be its ability to turn complicated global problems into a simple and memorable image.

Nuclear strategy, climate science, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and international relations can be difficult subjects to understand. The clock provides a straightforward question: How close are we to creating conditions that could seriously threaten humanity?

It is also intended to encourage action rather than hopelessness. Moving the hands closer to midnight is a warning, not a declaration that disaster is inevitable. If governments, scientists, organizations, and individuals address major global risks, the clock can move backward.

A Symbol of Responsibility

The Doomsday Clock ultimately represents a choice. Humanity possesses technologies capable of producing extraordinary progress, but some of those same technologies can create extraordinary dangers.

The clock reminds us that the future is not completely predetermined. Decisions made today—about nuclear weapons, the environment, scientific research, emerging technologies, international cooperation, and public policy—can influence the risks faced by future generations.

Rather than simply asking when the world will end, the Doomsday Clock asks a more important question: What can humanity do to prevent catastrophe?

That is why the clock continues to matter. It is not really counting down to the end of the world. It is a warning that the future depends, to a significant extent, on the choices people make today.

Doomsday Clock timeline of Settings .....

Origin and Cold War Era (1947–1990)

1947 (7 minutes): Created on the magazine cover by artist Martyl Langsdorf to reflect nuclear threats.
1949 (3 minutes): Moved forward after the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb.
1953 (2 minutes): Advanced following US and Soviet hydrogen bomb tests.
1963 (12 minutes): Moved back after the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty.
1984 (3 minutes): Shifted forward as US-Soviet diplomatic relations hit a low point.

Post-Cold War and Modern Era (1991–Present)

1991 (17 minutes): Set at its furthest distance from midnight following the end of the Cold War and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
2007 (5 minutes): Climate change is formally added alongside nuclear threats as a core existential danger.
2020 (100 seconds): Pushed past the two-minute mark for the first time due to compounding nuclear and climate inaction.
2023–2024 (90 seconds): Moved closer amid escalating geopolitical tensions from the Russia-Ukraine war.
2025 (89 seconds): Ticked one second forward amid mounting global instability.
2026 (85 seconds): Advanced to 85 seconds to midnight, marking the closest point in the clock's history.

As you can see the combination of everything that has happened in the last 6 years has pushed that Minute hand closer and closer to Midnight. This is unprecedented as, while it happened twice in the 1950's, the next Setting was far more reassuring.

So how have Events forced this very alarming Situation?

It started in 2020 as Tensions mounted with the growing Crisis in Ukraine, the absence of both the JCPOA Treaty with Iran and the Intermediary Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia (cancelled during Trump#1) and inaction on Climate Change.

Then things really began getting out of hand.

The Crisis in Ukraine worsened as Russia invaded in 2022 and Europe fractured. Nordstream was destroyed and Geopolitics in the Region began unravelling faster than anyone imagined, Tensions increased in the Caucasus and Israel began their Slaughter in Gaza. The Levant and Asia minor watched their Aggression with increased nervousness and then they (Israel) and America launched several illegal Wars on Iran and the general Consensus within Geopolitical Commentators was that the Age of Diplomacy and International Law was dead.

It was like the Peace of Westphalia never existed.

The terrifying thing about all this - throwing Threats to Food and Energy Security into the Mix - is how a World War doesn't erupt in a single Day.

World War 2 was what happened when years of regional Conflicts merged into each other.

Japan invaded Manchuria. Mussolini started flexing his Muscles in North Africa and Abyssinia, and Hitler started expanding Germany. He did this internally first, then annexed the Sudeten before invading Czechoslovakia and Poland. The War spread to the British, Dutch, Belgian and French Empires as the Axis Powers invaded their Dominions in Asia, Africa and then the home Countries of Europe. The War finally went global when Germany invaded the Soviet Union and declared War on America after Japan bombed Pearl Harbour in December 1942.

This starts looking very familiar to anyone paying attention to what is happening now.

Civil War has erupted in Yemen as government Forces supporting the Saudis relaunch their War on the Houthis. How long will it be before others do the same like they did in the War of 15 years ago? This included Sudan whose Government have the support of Ukrainian Soldiers based there. The Conflict moves closer to the strategically crucial Seaport of Djibouti at the narrow end of the Red Sea. Gamal Nasser might have tried nationalising the Suez Canal but the Red Sea always remained navigable.

The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement.......

This was signed in recent Days and is an Agreement between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey. It is a Pact effectively saying that an attack on any one of these is an attack on all of them. It's not clear what that means in the Context of Houthi attacks on the Saudis or any of the others by the Axis of Resistance, or if it will even invoke a Response from the other two in the Agreement, but taken at face value it could cause the War to spread as others in it are drawn in to the Conflict. Turkey could find itself fighting Iraqi Militias while Pakistani Troops in Saudi Arabia might have to join the War against the Houthis in Yemen.

They're all merging into each other and involve Governments as far away as Pyon Yang and Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo..... and Taipei.

The worrying thing is that it took 2 Nuclear Bombs to end World War 2. The Nuclear Weapons that could be deployed now won't just destroy 2 Cities thousands of miles away and will end a lot more than just a World War.

Do Nuclear Weapons guarantee Peace?

 

1. Do Nuclear Weapons guarantee Peace .....?
   
   No they don't......
   
   Within a couple of years of their use on Japan Nuclear Weapons did not deter the Soviet Union from their blockade of Berlin. Neither did they prevent North Korea - with Soviet and Chinese Support - from invading the South. They did nothing to stop the Warsaw Pact clampdown on the Protests in Poland and Hungary in 1956 and did not dissuade North Vietnam from pursuing their Aims - again, with Soviet and Chinese Support - in Indochina against Saigon, the French and Americans. The same applied in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the various Cold War Crises of the 1970's and the Soviets War in Afghanistan.
   
   Indeed, it could be argued that they nearly caused World War several times during all this ....
   
   General MacArthur wanted to use the Bomb on North Korea and China but, thankfully, was prevented from doing so by President Truman.
   
   The Cuban Missile Crisis pushed the World to the Brink by mutually provoking both America and the Soviet Union. Khrushchev wanted Missiles in Cuba because America had them in Turkey, both of which would have rendered any early warning Systems useless by their Proximity, and there were People in X-Com who were prepared to launch a full scale pre-emptive Attack on Cuba in response to the Weapons that were there.
   
   Nixon wanted to use them on North Vietnam but cooler Heads prevailed.
   
   More recently, the UK might have had the Bomb but it did not prevent the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands, even though Polaris could very easily have been launched from a Submarine off the Coast of Buenos Aries.
   
   It was the prospect of a Nuclear Strike by the West created during the Exercise "Able Archer" in 1983 which nearly prompted a full Soviet Response.
   
   Both India and Pakistan have Nuclear Weapons, but their continuing and occasionally violent Spat about the disputed Kashmir Region has never ended.
   
   Both China and the US have the Bomb but neither have prevented the other in the continuing Jostle over Taiwan. Nukes did nothing to prevent the provocatively unthinkable recently when the Speaker of the US Congress Nancy Pelosi crossed the diplomatic Line and recognised Taiwan as an independent country. The proverbial Third Rail in Sino-US Relations.
   
   Israel now has Nuclear Weapons, but this has never prevented any incursions against them since, or the huge Iranian Response to their Assault last year (2025).
   
   So it could be argued that the very existence of Nuclear Weapons might actually cause War and even the Doomsday Scenario. They induce a sense of Complacency which neglects other Solutions.
   
   The Cold War started when Truman wanted to scare the Soviets by using a new Atomic Weapon in 1945, which merely hardened Attitudes and guaranteed that Moscow would begin work on their own Bomb rather than a Spirit of Conciliation between the former WW2 Allies.
   
   It wasn't until the Missile Crisis of 1962 when the potential use of Nuclear Weapons became horribly apparent that work started to be rid of them with the first in a succession of Treaties governing them.
   
   

2. Have Nuclear Weapons even escalated Conflict?
   
   Yes they have and Events from the end of the 1950's to 1962 and again in 1983 prove that.
   
   There had been a 15 year stand off between the West and Soviet Spheres since the end of WW2. There were even hostilities during times when one was very close to the other.
   
   Khrushchev once described West Berlin as "a Bone stuck in his Throat" while there might have been the Blockade and then the Berlin Wall in response to all this.
   
   America had a similar Attitude about Cuba after the Revolution and it became apparent they were Communists allied to the Soviets. There was the disastrous Bay of Pigs Fiasco, economic Warfare and even novel Ideas to depose Castro.
   
   But neither led to whole Fleets facing each other off in the Atlantic like they did during the 1962 Crisis - which was caused by the very presence of Nuclear Weapons close to each others Territory.
   
   "Able Archer" in 1983 might otherwise have been seen by the Soviets as just another NATO War Exercise were it not for what was thought to be a first Strike Nuclear Attack until further Scrutiny showed it wasn't. Were it not for the better Judgement shown by a Soviet Lieutenant that Day civilisation would have ended 43 years ago.
   
   This wasn't the only time the Soviets saved the World from the Abyss.
   
   During the 1962 Missile Crisis a Soviet Submarine was being pummeled by American Depth Charges and the Captain was on the brink of using a tactical Nuclear Weapon. The Crews Political Officer talked him down and prevented Nuclear War.
   
   Many have suggested that Truman was wrong to use the Bomb against Japan.
   
   It could also be argued that the Soviets would have forced Emperor Hirohito to sue for unconditional Surrender after they smashed the Japanese Armies in Manchuria and Mongolia. Japan had been hoping for a conditional Surrender via Moscow in the months before and had never faced the Soviet Army in Battle.
   
   They very rapidly lost all the Territory they had on the north eastern Asian Mainland and it was obvious the Soviets weren't going to act as intermediaries.
   
   So the use of the Bomb might have been unnecessary - even though the first Attack was before the Soviet Declaration of War on Tokyo. This is because their Invasion of Manchuko took months to prepare and Stalin had pledged a War on Japan as long ago as Yalta in February 1945, long before he knew about American Nuclear Weapons.
   
   So Truman might have begun a 45 year Spiral that could very quickly have gone into apocalyptic free fall.

From "Axis of Evil" to being "On the Brink"

As the Title suggests this examines the Quote from a 2002 Speech by an American President to one from a British Foreign Secretary a couple of days ago.

More recently, things have escalated even further as a US Carrier Group makes it's way towards the Gulf. This is how several Scenarios lead to WW3.

From "Axis of Evil" to being "on the Brink".

So how did we get here?

The recent Protests and State response in Iran which has caused the current Crisis where Diplomatic Missions in the middle East are evacuated and the West readies for War with Iran did not happen in a vacuum and started years ago with GWB.

Even the AI on Google agrees in response to the Question: "Did "Axis of Evil" cause the conservative backlash in Iran?" here was the response......

"Yes, George W. Bush’s foreign policy, most notably his 2002 "Axis of Evil" speech, is widely credited with fueling a conservative backlash in Iran that crippled the domestic reformist movement.

Key impacts of the Bush administration's approach include:

Empowerment of Hardliners: Bush's rhetoric provided Iranian radical Islamists with a powerful political weapon to use against their modernist rivals. By framing the U.S. as a persistent existential threat, conservatives revived militant revolutionary language and sidelined reformists like President Mohammad Khatami.

Stalling Reform: The "Axis of Evil" label was viewed by Iranian political elites as a "betrayal" of the cooperation Iran had provided during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. This shift eroded the ability of reformists to argue for transparency or moderation in foreign and domestic policies.

The "Axis of Evil" Impact: The speech sparked immediate outrage across Iran's political spectrum, uniting both reformists and conservatives in condemnation. Analysts note that while public support for reform remained high, the conservative "Old Guard" successfully used the perceived American hostility to seize the political initiative.

Long-term Shift: This backlash contributed to the eventual rise of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, marking a significant departure from the more cooperative era sought by reformists earlier in the decade."

So the Situation in Iran that threatens to draw the whole World into WW3 began 24 years ago with a Speech by the US President of the time.

Something many of us have been very critical of in the years since.

What I'm saying here is a reformed Iran was exactly what the Iranians were working towards 25 years ago - without the risk of a regional, or even a global, War - until their task was made next to impossible by a misguided and ignorant Speech by an American President in 2002.

A Speech that ignored recent History the Presidents own Father was involved in.

To lump Iran in with Iraq was extremely erroneous given how they had fought a brutal War with each other in the 1980's - during which America and others supported Saddam. Iran remained neutral during the 1990/1 Gulf War and did not support Saddam at all.

To compare them to North Korea was even more erroneous as it ignored the Fact that traditionalist Muslims don't like Communists. This was exactly why America supported the Mujahedin in Afghanistan as they fought the "Communist Infidels" of the Soviet Union and their own Government. Or why the Soviets supported the Marxist Government in Kabul and were fearful of the Islamic States in their own backyard.

Both Foreign Policies happened when GWB's Father was the American Vice President.

24 years later you have an Iraq where many Shia Muslims are as loyal to Tehran as they might be Baghdad, an Iran who now probably does have dealings with a Nuclear North Korea, and a Geopolitical Alliance with both Russia and China.

Instead of a reformed Iran that could have happened without Bloodshed.

And one that doesn't now face the Risk of Civil War like the one that raged in Syria for nearly 15 years. Except this one would happen in a Country that could sever the Persian Gulf from the rest of the World, flatten pro-Western Arab States, severely damage Israel, and is far bigger and geopolitically far more significant to their Allies.

The Chinese angle .......

A lot of gung ho Idiots might think that putting pressure on Iran acts as a choke point to China but Chinese Oil imports from the Gulf Region amounted to half it's total Oil imports in 2024.

Any destabilisation in Iran threatens to render the Straits of Hormuz completely unnavigable which would include Shipping to China from all the Gulf States. Would Beijing tolerate such a huge disruption to its Supply?

The gung ho Lunatics might think it's a good thing if that happened, but here's why it wouldn't be.......

China supplies America with 50% of the USA's medical needs including essentials like Gauze, protective supplies and basics like Ibuprofen.

The EU is even more dependent - relying on China for up to 95% of its ingredients for Drugs like Anti Biotics.

There are many other Areas of Industry where China has become a huge supplier of Goods - from electrical and consumer Goods to EV's, Telecoms and heavy engineering - and while importers are trying to become less dependant on Chinese Products it won't happen overnight, Factories, Foundries and retooling can take years to develop, while the resulting economic conflict would merely add to the Tension.

And this doesn't include the growing standoff involving Taiwan, the world's biggest supplier of microprocessors.

All of this at a time when supply chains are under more strain than they have ever been since WW2.

If People think Price increases have been steep in the last 4 years what might they be if the Situation in Iran escalated?

None of this helped by what is happening in Venezuela and elsewhere.

In both "Threads" and "Countdown to Looking Glass" - Films that deal with the Preamble to Nuclear War the Scenarios start in Iran, but the Threat now is more real than even the most realistic of Films.

America was always worried about the Soviet Union taking control of Iran's Oil - which is why they deposed Iran's leader Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the Shah. They continued to supply Iran with Weapons until the Islamic Revolution toppled the Shah'ist Regime in 1979, after which they were concerned that the Soviets would move on Tehran to establish Geopolitical and economic Links.

Russia now has very firm links with Iran - being the main provider of Nuclear Technology - while Iran has supplied Moscow with Weapons used in the War in Ukraine. A lot of this in response to western Foreign Policy with both Countries. In better times Russia acted as guarantor to Iranian compliance with the JCPOA Treaty. As the Situation deteriorated that no longer applies.

WW2 started with Conflicts in various Parts of the World gradually merging with each other, from the Far East to North Africa, Spain then the rest of Europe - and finally America.

We are seeing the same thing happening gradually now and Tensions don't seem to be easing. Conflicts in Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Arctic Circle, the Far and Middle East and Latin America.

Unfortunately any World War resulting from these won't end with Victory Street Parties in Trafalgar and Times Square, or Red and Tiananmen Square depending in which side you are on.

They will end with nothing - because no one will win and everyone loses everything.

And also ........ How about the Iranian People themselves?

Given what happened in Iraq after Saddam and the brutal Pogroms against Alawite Muslims and Christians in Syria after the collapse of the Assad Government has anyone considered what could happen in Iran if the same thing is done there?

Alawites - including Women and Children - were slaughtered in Syria by Agents of the HTS Government even though they had nothing to do with the Assad Regime. Christians were murdered despite Jolani's assurances of religious Pluralism. So how about Iran after 46 years in it's current form and anyone who is accused of being involved with the Government? Given the Slaughter in Syria would the new Regime bother to establish Guilt or Innocence?

Then there was what happened in Iraq after Saddam, where Maliki's Government imposed discriminatory Laws against Sunni Muslims regardless of any or no involvement in the Ba'ath Party.

They endured everything from suspected Complicity to accusations of Terrorism and lost many Rights including those to their own Property.

The potential for a terrible Pogrom in Iran should the Government fall is quite real and could kill, maim and displace 100's of 1000's.

2012 ....... Or the Day after Tomorrow?

 2012 ........ or the Day after tomorrow?

A Geologist could study the Fault Lines and Tectonic Plates of the geopolitical World as much as they could the geological ones.

A Patchwork or Network of Allegiances and Enmities that met at certain points mostly remaining dormant apart from an occasional Rumble as they jostle against each other then settle down.

But what if they don't and begin to erupt or cause an Earthquake like those at San Andreas?

Berlin was one for a very long time, with several tremors caused by the Berlin Airlift, and the Building of the Wall. Korea saw the huge Plates of the Soviet Union and China collide with a predominantly American one. Cuba in 1962 or Hungary and Poland in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, then there was Vietnam. 

Not to mention the various Conflicts of "Proxies" in the Israeli-Arab World.

The Balkans in the 1990's was another as the Serbs were tacitly supported by Russia and others by the West and finally NATO.

The Ukraine is an example of how this has happened after it remained dormant after WW2. It might have seethed occasionally during the Cold War with Operation Nightingale and maybe even a few stand offs in the Air and on the Sea with NATO in the Black Sea but these were isolated Incidents.

But what we have seen in recent years is different and the Incidents not only aren't isolated they are also causing other Fault Lines in the region and beyond to rupture. From the Baltic to the Balkans old Wounds that were gradually healing have reopened. This has also happened in Scandinavia which has even seen new ones form between Russia and Sweden.

The Balts have revisited their Acrimony with Moscow and Poland seals it's Border with Belarus while watching the Suwalki Corridor.

In an ominous resonance of History the Balkans have begun to creak. The Serbian Government try to straddle their Loyalties with both Russia and the EU they are now surrounded by. They are also now surrounded by NATO - who launched their Assault on Serbia in the 1990's. This might have begun to heal in an uneasy Peace were it not for the War in Ukraine which has caused the Serbs to look to their traditional Russian Allies as they wonder what intrigue could be done to them.

The Bosnian Serbs in Pale have begun to jostle for Secession from the Bosnian Federation which puts a huge strain on the Region and causes raised Eyebrows in both Brussels and Belgrade.

While not in NATO Bosnia - or at least its Bosniaks - enjoy preferred Status, but while things remain in flux it allows the Bosnian Serbs a very small Land bridge to the Dalmatian Coast and the outside World.

The increasing Pressure caused by the War in Ukraine and the growing Tectonic Plates that confront each other in it could cause any allegiances in the former Yugoslavia to solidify and become fixed.

A Trip to Sarajevo anyone?

Further East, the Fault Line of Transnistria - which erupted in War between pro-West Moldovans and ethnic Russians - had remained dormant for 30 years until the Ukraine Conflict caused a Conflict Line between Russia and the eastern Balkans.

Then, there was "Axis of Evil" and how that proved very counterproductive.

This created the impression that Iran, Iraq and North Korea somehow had regular meetings to decide how they would destroy the civilised world. It ignored how they were either Enemies (Iran/Iraq) or indifferent to each other (Iran/North Korea), and each worked in isolation of each other. After the "Axis of Evil" Speech they gradually found common Cause, while the Shia Moslems of Iraq gravitated to Tehran. Suddenly they begin to coalesce.

This was shown during the 12 Day War with Israel and Iran, and then America, in 2025 where the years before had seen Iran align itself with bigger players to its north and north east.

The Ukraine War reinforced this and extended it to Russia and China. Suddenly there's a vast Tectonic Plates across the length and breath of Eastern Europe, Siberia, Asia and the far and Middle East. A very dangerous Fault Line appeared in the Persian Gulf, while the Israelis onslaught on Gaza caused another which threatened the Suez Canal.

In the far East and Oceania North Korea reinforced it's Links with Russia and China causing another Fault Line with one of the Worlds biggest Economies Japan and increasing nervousness with the Anzacs. The Indonesian Islands could become a Choke Point between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, while India gradually moves towards their Continental Neighbours.

So how does all this connect with the Films "2012" and "The Day after Tomorrow"?

The former shows what happens when an Earthquake isn't just something that famously struck San Francisco or Turkey and Syria. That it involves the whole Surface of the World which is engulfed in vast Seismic Traumas and Tsunami 1000's of feet high.

That the geopolitical Tremors and Traumas which threaten us now could very quickly spread and engulf the whole World.

The latter shows what happens when a Storm does the same thing and isn't another isolated Hurricane on Americas eastern Seaboard or Carribbean.

So, while a Geologist could use their Craft to interpret Geopolitics so could a Climatologist use Meteorological Charts to do the same thing.

What is particularly ominous is how Jack's Computer generated Model shows huge Storms over where Nuclear War could happen - North America, Europe and Russia. It doubles down when it leads to an Ice Age that could be analogous to a Nuclear Winter.

The OSCE ........ or NATO?

 The OSCE ...... or NATO?

Many of the Problems we have now are due to the gradual neglect of the OSCE or Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe.

This was an initiative that was meant to establish a working relationship of Security from Portugal to Vladivostok and a way forward in the post-Cold War World Order.

Originally conceived between European Countries, America and the Soviet Union, as Sergei Lavrov says it could very easily have continued with post-Soviet Russia.

Indeed, in conjunction with the CFE or Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty - signed by western European, former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Countries - it would have acted as a Guarantee against where we are now. Because everyone is in it - including Ukraine and Georgia - Russia would feel no Threat to it's Security.

Thus, there would be no War in Ukraine, while the Dynamic affecting the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement would have been very different.

It would also have had other effects far beyond the Lisbon-Vladivostok Corridor.

The enmity with Iran wouldn't exist because as an OSCE Partner Russia would use it's substantial Leverage with Tehran while Relations with China would be more inclusive than fractious. Even North Korea would see the Writing on the Wall and adjust accordingly.

So instead of green lighting NATO expansion President Bill Clinton and others like the UK Prime Minister and German and French Leaders ought to have been working to develop the OSCE.

The CFE Treaty was adapted at a Conference in Istanbul in 1999 so former Soviet States could ratify it on a national rather than soviet Basis.

The Arrangement began to unravel in 2007 when Russia cited NATO enlargement and how it increased Weapons in signatory Countries as the reason for their suspending it. They mentioned Missile Systems in Poland, Bases in Romania and other things which rendered the Treaty meaningless.

NATO responded by criticising Russian Troop presences in both Moldova and Georgia.

This was before the Georgian War of 2008, which gave Russia some justification for being there as Peacekeepers when Georgian Artillery began firing at South Ossetian Villages and the enclaves Capital Tskhinvali. Even the EU found in a subsequent enquiry against the Georgians for deliberately targeting Civilians and dubbed the episode a War Crime.

The Moldovan Story goes back to the Transnistria War where ethnic Russians - backed by Ukraine - fought for independence against the Romanian Moldovans, and it could be argued that Russian Soldiers were there to act as guarantors, particularly as the Chisinau Government were veering towards Europe and maybe even NATO.

As the War in Ukraine began after the Russian Military Operation of 2022 there were fears in Moldova that they might become the "next Ukraine", and even Sergei Lavrov once mentioned this. It was because of Moldova's proximity to Odessa.

Except, shouldn't this have been added to the Reasons why Zelenskiy ought to have ratified the Istanbul Communique in April 2022?

The Treaty guaranteed Ukraine's possession of the famous Black Sea port, and thus, a sizable buffer between Moldova and the Russian held Oblasts of the Donbas and Crimea.

Any Russian Troops in Transnistria would have been bound by the Treaty, while Fears surrounding their Presence and Moldovans position in European-NATO Geopolitics ought to have been the subject of further negotiations and a Treaty.

The OSCE and CFE Treaties - along with the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty - were the things that prevented Missiles from crashing into every European Capital and City. These were the Frameworks for how the post-Cold War World Order would look, while the START Treaty covered strategic Arms that meant the rest of the World.

As these formed Lines that should never be crossed the World becomes increasingly dangerous as each one becomes fainter by the Month, or erased completely.

NATO expansion effectively cancelled the CFE Treaty as Member States increased their Military beyond it. An Irony probably not lost on Russians who see it as akin to Germany violating the Versailles Treaty when it expanded it's Armed Forces in the 1930's.

One Problem President Trump has with anyone who has been paying attention is how he was the one who walked out of the INF Treaty - and then did the same with the JCPOA Deal with Iran. The latter was a Deal with Tehran that they should curtail their Nuclear Program in return for Sanctions relief. Because he did this, not only were Sanctions reapplied, we are now in the very ambiguous position of having to guess what Iran's Nuclear program might be doing. The latter is proving very dangerous, with Trump deploying Aircraft Carriers to the Region and rattling a very large Sabre.

None of this would be happening if he hadn't left the JCPOA.

Not helped by the growing Iranian enmity with an Israel that does have the Bomb.

Meanwhile, Russian fears of western Militarism shouldn't be underestimated.

It took heaps of reassurance from a plethora of western and NATO Leaders to convince Gorbachev to support German reunification. Everyone, from James Baker to Margaret Thatcher, Manfred Woerner to Helmut Kohl, and French Leaders, all told him "not one Inch eastward"!

Despite nearly 45 years of liberal democracy in the Bundesrepublik or West Germany, Gorbachev was still wary of how a unified Germany would bring NATO further east and nearer to his Border, such was the impact of Operation Barbarossa on the Soviet/Russian Psyche.

Subsequently how could People be shocked when "Gorby" came down firmly in support of Putin over Ukraine, rather than condemn him? But then, he was the one who must have felt most betrayed when NATO did expand, being the Leader in the Kremlin when those pledges were made.

The OSCE - along with the supporting Treaties - was supposed to be how the World would be once the NATO-Warsaw Pact Stand-off ended. Even Vaclav Havel alluded to this when he suggested a similar Arrangement in 1990, saying; the Soviet Union should join NATO, or the Organisation be dismantled as it's Warsaw Pact Opponent no longer existed.

Moscow didn't join, but this was finally deemed unnecessary as the OSCE and Treaties of Paris and Helsinki would facilitate the alternative.

What we are seeing now is the consequences of all this being neglected.

..........

WHY ARE TREATIES IMPORTANT?

Treaty's are crucial to maintain some semblance of international Law.

History shows us what happens when they are violated, the most significant being that of Versailles and Munich. The former restricting Germanies Military expansion, the latter meant to prevent it's geographical equivalent, violation of both resulting in WW2. Reparations being the formers Weakness and warned against by several People, including the Architect of the League of Nations Robert Gascoyne Cecil.

The subsequent War cancelled the Treaty's of St Germaine as Countries disappeared into the Reich.

In recent years the Oslo Accords died with the Zionist Bullet in 1995 and Nablus now has empty would-be Government Buildings, Gaza is reduced to Rubble, West Bank increasingly annexed and Palestinians decimated.

The CFE Treaty effectively cancelled by NATO expansion while the OSCE, with its origins in Helsinki and Paris, sidelined by it. The INF Treaty was rendered meaningless by further NATO deployment and development of dual purpose Weapons that could be turned into Nuclear Missiles. That finally died when Trump #1 abandoned it.

The JCPOA was meant to ensure Iranian cooperation in not developing Nuclear Weapons and Trump #1 abandoned that one too.

By her own admission former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said how the West used the Minsk Accords as a way to buy time to further arm and militarise a Ukraine that was being brought closer to NATO Membership.

And the very reason NATO expanded was because, while both Gorbachev and Yeltsin were given assurances it wouldn't there was no Treaty to ensure it.

There are others which have now become nominal as the Situation is anathema to their aspirations.

So, as these disappear or are made impotent by belligerence or contempt we could descend into a neo-dark Age like the time when arbitrary Powers could War with each other on a Whim.

What we are seeing is the gradual erosion of the Peace of Westphalia.

This was a series of Treaties signed in Osnabruck and Munster in 1648 to end both the 30 year and 80 year Wars.

It was felt that if these continued there would be nothing left of Europe as all combatants would have fought each other to death and that had to end.

It established several principles ....

Ending religious Wars between Catholics and Protestants.

The rise and sovereignty of nation states.

Foundation of international Law.

All of this being the premise upon which other Treaty's are built.

So, Treaty's are important to maintain a World Order that means Countries and their People can develop and live in Peace. Europe after WW2 enjoyed 40 years of it until the Balkans descended into Wars of the 1990's with the break up of Yugoslavia and the Transnistria War.

Compared to the Ukraine though these were very regional Conflicts that didn't draw the whole World into them. The Ukraine Conflict has caused Europe to move even further away from the Treaties that bound it, including it's very existence, meant to prevent War in Europe.

A LAME EXCUSE......

It has been said that the OSCE could never replace NATO because it doesn't have anything like the same resources.

The Answer to that is a simple one, give them the resources ......

The OSCE - with its origins in Summits in Helsinki and Paris - was meant to be a Framework for how Security and Cooperation would happen in Europe after the confrontational Situation caused by the Warsaw Pact and NATO ended.

In other words, the end of the Cold War which saw the end of the Pact but not that of NATO.

Like the end of any major Conflict a huge amount of restructuring should happen after it, which means developing the OSCE with former Warsaw Pact Countries and the Soviet Union/then former Soviet Republics integrated with what would soon become former NATO Countries.

The end of the Cold War was the thing that defined the Era, like the end of both World Wars.

1918 saw the birth of the League of Nations, and the end of World War 2 the UN and the framework that would become the European Economic Community and then EU.

So the same Resolve should have happened at the end of a Cold War that had affected global alignments for 40 years. The Resources that had been used to supply it's stand off on both sides being channeled into the new Framework.

Thus, former NATO and Warsaw Pact Staff share the same Offices and Work Space.

And why would this have been impossible when you see how easily former Warsaw Pact and even Soviet Countries joined the EU and NATO from what they were before?

And they were staunchly anti western.

It wasn't just Soviet Forces who went into Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The former saw Hungarian Communist Forces support the Soviets while the latter was a coalition of Warsaw Pact Countries that included the Soviet Union, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary.

And how about before that when former Axis Countries joined NATO - starting with Italy in 1949 and West Germany in 1955? Only a few years before both were in a very hot War with their new NATO Partners.

More recently, almost all the Weapons and Equipment like the MIG29's and Artillery Pieces former Warsaw Pact Countries like Poland were giving Ukraine in 2022 were from the Cold War when they got them from the Soviet Union.

Any of those in my Age Group who were in their mid to late 20's at the end of the Cold War might have served in NATO or Warsaw Pact Militaries for the last 10 years of that Cold War. We were old enough to remember it but young enough to to be part of what would make things right as the division of Europe came to and end. The end of a European Civil War that started in 1914.

At least that's what some of us hoped for.

But that didn't happen and it became apparent that NATO expansion would usurp the OSCE and come to dominate the post Cold War Geopolitics.

And that expansion with the exclusion of Russia told Moscow who it was being set off against.

So the question I'm asking here is why, at the end of WW1 which saw the end of 3 Empires (German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian), the start of the Soviet Union, the creation of several new Countries in Europe and the League of Nations.

Or how the end of WW2 and 6 years of disruption to World Trade, a War that ravaged most of Europe, where some Countries still endured Rationing up to the 1950's, that saw a Continent divided, and millions of Refugees, plus the end of several more Empires and the expansion of 2 they could still find the Resolve and Resources to provide Marshall Aid, create the UN, and what would become NATO and the European Union, but they couldn't find similar for the OSCE at the end of a Cold War that had none of the above?

But had significantly shaped and defined the World for every year since the second would War.

If the same Resolve and Resources had been channelled into the OSCE they'd have secured Peace and we'd have avoided the Situation we are in now where the World is becoming more dangerous than it ever was even during any of the above Conflicts.

The War everyone hoped wouldn't happen.

In recent Days a full blown, direct shooting War started with Israel and Iran with the former beginning an illegal AND EXTREMELY RECKLESS preemptive Attack on the latter. I began writing Commentary on it and given the severe Gravitas of the situation I felt it necessary to turn those Comments into a Post on the subject........   

Pearl Harbour 2......

There are so many parallels with the Israeli Attack on Iran in the early Hours of June 13th and the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1942.

The Japanese were in Negotiations with the Americans right up to their Attack - using the Talks as a Feint while they prepared for it - rather like it looks like the supposed 'Negotiations' President Trump's Team were doing with Tehran were happening while Americas Ally Israel were preparing for their Attack.

Trump now looks to the Iranians and their Allies like Yamamoto or General Tojo, and is probably regarded in the same way.

This must have raised Eyebrows in Moscow as they have been 'negotiating' with America in the last Month while they had the recent Attacks on the Airfields and Railways to contend with.

But then, didn't they have 'negotiations' in Minsk which were - as Angela Merkel confessed - just a Feint while the West armed and militarised Ukraine?

Intriguing how a German Chancellor would say this after another in the Reichstag used Munich 1938 to buy time to further equip before his invasion of Poland the year after.

Given how dangerous this can be isn't all this utterly detestable that western Leaders should deliberately forfeit any Trust their Negotiating Partners are meant to have to give the Process any substance?

History repeating.....or ignored?

During the 1962 Missile Crisis Kennedy was very reluctant to attack Cuba for this very reason. That he did not want to be seen treating Havana like Pearl Harbour while there was scope for negotiation with Khrushchev. He was being pressured by his General Staff to do so, but he held firm.

Given the potential Consequences it's just as well he did.

Other similarities ....

Maybe he had learnt his lesson from the Bay of Pigs fiasco the year before when the same People talked him into launching the Invasion, and how it would prompt an insurrection against the Cuban Government.

Both failed.

The Bay of Pigs also failed because Kennedy wasn't going to get drawn into a direct War with Cuba - which is what those attempting to manipulate him wanted him to do.

So, about whether America and Israel are hoping attacks on Tehran will invoke the same and Iranians will rise up against their Government?

Didn't they learn anything from "Axis of Evil" when GWB lumped Iran in with it despite Tehran's reformist Government of the time?

Did the Iranians panic and scurry off to vote for an even more pro-western Candidate in the Election after Bush's Gaffe? No they didn't, and they voted instead for a former Revolutionary Guard.

Yet more History repeating ......

Is this "WMD's" 2, a rerun of the 2003 War in Iraq?

The thing here is, given that Iran doesn't actually have any Nuclear Weapons, any "smoking Guns turning into Mushroom Clouds" could very well be Israeli. That Israel could resort to their proven to exist Nuclear Weapons should things become so parlous that a Population who have never had a War like this on their own Soil demand it.

Or that Netanyahu could blackmail other Countries to support him by using this Threat.....

"If things get too bad I might have to use the Bomb unless you help" that sort of thing.

It's a Fait Accompli because if others do get drawn into it Iran's Allies who also have the Bomb will feel obliged to support Tehran. Pakistan has even offered to Nuke Israel should Netanyahu use his.

Iran's response to the Israeli Assault shows they weren't dealt the crippling blow Propaganda would have us believe while Israeli Authorities are doing everything they can to conceal the Damage it has done.

What might Iran do to any Gulf States that look complicit, and what would that mean for the global Economy if it's main Fuel supply is blocked or even destroyed? And might Israel/America do the same to any that side with Iran?

Like the Economy hadn't been battered enough in recent years by the Pandemic, Sanctions resulting from the War in Ukraine, and the Sino-US Trade and Tariff War.

This whole thing is a complete travesty and Israel should be condemned in the strongest terms for an unprovoked Attack on a sovereign Nation who were negotiating in good faith to end an increasingly tense Crisis.

And what did Netanyahu do when the proverbial hit the Fan?

Fly away to Greece apparently on the "Wings of Zion!"

So, about these Negotiations ........

A few months ago now I began asking if Trump was sincere in wanting to end some of the Wars America had started.

Or was all the Shuttle Diplomacy and publicised Statements that began with Russia nothing more than Bluster to hide the Fact that the War was going to continue?

Was the Confrontation with Zelenskiy in the Whitehouse that time nothing more than Show? That maybe the Ukrainian President doesn't have the Monopoly on being an Actor?

Trump could have ended American support for a pointless War as soon as he took office, but he didn't. He could also have done the same with Israel in Gaza.

That his distancing himself from Britain and Europe, trapped in a Policy of his predecessors making, could be meant to prompt them to increase their own Military spending?

And who might they buy a lot of Weapons from?

There are questions about whether Trump knew in advance of the Israeli Attack and even those about American complicity.

The problem Trump faces is either/or

Either he knew and the Negotiations with Tehran were just a Feint to lull Iran into a false sense of Security.

Or, he didn't know, which compromises his Credibility as a reliable negotiating Partner because why bother hoping for a Result with someone who is either oblivious to the situation or ineffectual?

So, how are any of these People supposed to trust any western Leader about anything when it looks like such a Culture of Duplicity exists?

What makes it even more dangerous are rumours that North Korea aren't getting drawn into the same Game and Kim Jong Un isn't playing, which tells you that the whole Process might be being seen for what it is.

America should not be gambling with World War 3, but that is exactly what they are doing.

One thing I can't fathom is how any of this was allowed to fester for so long anyway.

Couldn't Trumps predecessor Joe Biden have commissioned his former Boss Barack Obama as a special Envoy to Iran and re-establish the JCPOA he negotiated when he was President?

The terrifying thing is Americas War with Japan started with Pearl Harbour, but it ended with Nuclear Weapons.

Update ......

From "Axis of Evil" to being "on the Brink".

The recent Protests and State response in Iran which has caused the current Crisis where Diplomatic Missions in the middle East are evacuated and the West readies for War with Iran did not happen in a vacuum and started years ago with GWB.

Even the AI on Google agrees in response to the Question: "Did "Axis of Evil" cause the conservative backlash in Iran here was the response......

"Yes, George W. Bush’s foreign policy, most notably his 2002 "Axis of Evil" speech, is widely credited with fueling a conservative backlash in Iran that crippled the domestic reformist movement.

Key impacts of the Bush administration's approach include:

Empowerment of Hardliners: Bush's rhetoric provided Iranian radical Islamists with a powerful political weapon to use against their modernist rivals. By framing the U.S. as a persistent existential threat, conservatives revived militant revolutionary language and sidelined reformists like President Mohammad Khatami.

Stalling Reform: The "Axis of Evil" label was viewed by Iranian political elites as a "betrayal" of the cooperation Iran had provided during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. This shift eroded the ability of reformists to argue for transparency or moderation in foreign and domestic policies.

The "Axis of Evil" Impact: The speech sparked immediate outrage across Iran's political spectrum, uniting both reformists and conservatives in condemnation. Analysts note that while public support for reform remained high, the conservative "Old Guard" successfully used the perceived American hostility to seize the political initiative.

Long-term Shift: This backlash contributed to the eventual rise of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, marking a significant departure from the more cooperative era sought by reformists earlier in the decade."

So the Situation in Iran that threatens to draw the whole World into WW3 began 24 years ago with a Speech by the US President of the time.

Something many of us have been very critical of in the years since.