Historians often cite two American qualities to explain why the United States and its allies prevailed in the Cold War; military strength and better ideas - such things as the rule of law and freedom for individuals and the marketplace; often called “Soft Power” in shorthand. The ultimate irony in contemporary geopolitics is that Russia and China have studied our use of Soft Power, corrupted it to suit their purposes, and today are well along in using it to win the second Cold War. In recent years, the Russian and Chinese approach to expanding their influence outside their borders has relied on making seductive offers to finance, build, own and operate nuclear power plants. Sounds innocent enough. Often these offers also include proposals to build ports, highways, pipelines or railroads. Still, what could go wrong? Usually, before the ink is dry, an offer appears involving military-to-military cooperation and weapons sales. And before long the host country awakens to two harsh realities - Russia or China controls their access to energy and their military, they have mortgaged their infrastructure, and have little prospect of servicing a growing mountain of debt. In very little time, their sovereignty has become a chimera. Call it what it is; The New Imperialism. You may ask why the United States can’t compete. Why can’t we simply offer to build a better power plant? The short answer is that we’re trying. Today, American companies have designed and are seeking approval to market the next generation of nuclear technology; a smaller, safer, cheaper, modular reactor that can provide clean reliable power to tens of millions of consumers in the decades ahead.

A fact not widely understood: Mussolini learned from Lenin, and Hitler learned from both. It’s no mere coincidence that the Nazi Party was an acronym for National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Under Communism, Fascism and Nazism, the means of production and other forms of wealth were either owned outright or largely controlled by the state. Those who held political power decided who got what, and for what purposes. In the late 1970s, Mr. Muravchik writes, “socialism reached its apogee, with communist, social-democratic or Third World socialist regimes governing most of the world.” In country after country, socialism’s ability to alleviate poverty and create wealth for the masses, proved “dismal.” Many socialist regimes evolved into one-party dictatorships and despotisms. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia did not embrace free market capitalism. What wealth Russia possesses is today controlled by President Vladimir Putin and his cronies. In China, the number of people killed thanks to socialist policies is staggering. In recent years, the ruling Chinese Communist Party has developed a “socialist market economy” that permits entrepreneurship and private ownership. Wealth has been created as a result, but its distribution is among the most unequal in the world. Politically, China is neither democratizing nor liberalizing. Finally, a word about Scandinavia: Sweden and other Nordic countries experimented with socialism, found it wanting, and returned to capitalism to create the affluence necessary to provide a broad social safety net and an array of welfare benefits to their small, relatively homogenous populations.

On the contrary, Mr. Sanders signed a letter of support for Hugo Chavez in 2003, and when the Venezuelan strongman died a decade later, Mr. Corbyn eulogized him “for showing that the poor matter and wealth can be shared.” Mr. Muravchik brings to bear an unusual perspective because, “Socialism was the faith in which I was raised. It was my father’s faith and his father’s before him.” Like many idealistic young people around the world then and now, he believed socialism could lead to “an end to exploitation; a new dawn of brotherhood; a different, kinder and more wholesome way of living.” Mr. Muravchik conceptualizes socialism as “man’s most ambitious attempt to supplant religion with a doctrine about how life ought to be lived that claimed grounding in science rather than revelation.” He sees the French Revolution of 1789 as the “manger in which socialism was born.” That culminated in the Reign of Terror and “the Napoleonic bloodbath.” In the early 1800s, socialists were less revolutionary and more experimental, establishing small communities in the United States and England, “led or inspired by Robert Owen” and based on collective ownership. None lasted long. A few years later, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels produced what they claimed was a more scientific socialist doctrine, one that “provided an account of man’s history, an explanation of current sorrows and a vision of a redemptive future.” When the international proletariat refused to conform to Marx’s prophesies, Vladimir Lenin came along to establish a “vanguard” to decide for workers and peasants what was in their best interest. The death toll ? due to executions, politically created famines, and the deprivations of the labor camps ? would soon be in the millions.

In 2002, Joshua Muravchik, a distinguished scholar, wrote a history of socialism which, he thought, might also be considered an epitaph for socialism. Beginning in the 18th century, socialism had taken many forms in many countries throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. These experiments failed, in many cases spectacularly and tragically. Surely, socialism was dead and buried. Yes, but like a zombie in a horror movie, it rose from the grave. Mr. Muravchik’s book was titled: “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” A new edition, published last month, carries the subtitle, “The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of Socialism,” and includes a long and edifying epilogue. I am more than a little troubled that in the United Kingdom, the Labor Party is now headed by Jeremy Corbyn, while in the United States one of the leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination is Bernie Sanders. I’m not predicting the two men will be elected to lead their respective nations. But that outcome can hardly be ruled out. Mr. Corbyn has declared his intention: “to challenge global capitalism.” Richard Seymour, a British Marxist, has praised him as “a radical socialist.” Mr. Sanders prefers to call himself a “democratic socialist,” a term, Mr. Muravchik writes, “long favored by members of the Socialist Party and others to emphasize their difference with Communism.” Both politicians have praised such unfree countries as the Soviet Union, Cuba and Nicaragua, and neither has been distressed by the impact socialism has had on Venezuela, which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, and where 90 percent of the population now lives in hideous poverty.

If the aircraft are not delivered, Lockheed-Martin will have to refund some or all of what the Turks have already paid. That, too, will disrupt the program, but both of those problems are remediable. Mr. Erdogan’s perfidy is not. The weight of U.S. opposition to Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400s was evidenced in February, when Vice President Mike Pence said the United States “…will not stand idly by while NATO allies purchase weapons from our adversaries.” In March, Gen. Curtis Scaparotti, NATO boss and commander of European Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Turks should not be allowed to get the F-35 if it goes ahead with its purchase of the Russian missile system. In his decision to buy the S-400s, Mr. Erdogan has been entirely inflexible. But the threat of U.S. sanctions, under a law that imposes them on nations that purchase military equipment from Russia, is having some effect. The threat of economic sanctions may bring Mr. Erdogan to his senses. The Turkish lira is weak, having lost about 30 percent of its value last year. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and several senators have reportedly warned Turkey of sanctions against it. Russia is the only likely source of aid to offset any U.S. sanctions, but it hasn’t promised such aid probably because the Russian economy isn’t strong enough to do so. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said in a mid-April press conference that Turkey is considering NATO’s ? meaning the United States’ ? concerns about the S-400 purchase. If Turkey accepts delivery of the S-400s, our sanctions should go into effect immediately, even at the risk of bringing the Turkish economy to a dead halt.

The effort, begun in 1974 under an elaborately conceived cover story, was ultimately unsuccessful. More modern technology could recover critical parts of the Japanese F-35. We usually sell weapon systems to allies that are slightly less capable than the ones we buy for our forces in order to protect some secrets. The Japanese clearly aren’t to be blamed even if some of the F-35’s secrets are discovered by our adversaries as a result of the crash. Japan is a trustworthy ally. Turkey isn’t. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made no secret of his nation’s realignment with Russia despite Turkey’s membership in NATO. His treaty with Russia and Iran to keep Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in power has led to the establishment of two of our principal adversaries’ military presence in Syria. In furtherance of that realignment, Turkey is buying Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/anti-missile systems that are scheduled to be delivered starting this summer. The Trump administration has stopped the delivery of F-35s as well as support equipment to Turkey, and has threatened economic sanctions if the S-400s are delivered. If the F-35s and S-400s are delivered to Turkey, the Turks ? with Russia’s help ? will be able to test one against the other. In doing so, they would be able to determine many of the F-35s capabilities, including, most importantly, its ability to avoid the S-400’s radars. That information could lead to the discovery of how to reprogram the S-400 to detect and shoot down the F-35. But the Turks have already paid about $8 billion for F-35 aircraft and support equipment. Stopping Turkey’s participation in the program has already disrupted the F-35 program.

Selling top-shelf weapon systems to our allies means sharing some or all of its secrets with those allies. And that’s not always a good idea. Two incidents ? one actual and one inchoate ? have put the stealthy F-35’s secrets in play. The first involves the loss of a Japanese F-35. The second is the Trump administration’s decision to deny Turkey F-35s, some of which it has already paid for. The F-35 is the most expensive weapon system the Pentagon has ever bought. Engineering problems ? some of which remain unresolved ? delayed its production for years. Eight nations, including Turkey, have partnered with the United States in the F-35 program. Three more ? Israel, Japan and South Korea are purchasing them through our foreign military sales program. On April 9, one of the Japan Air Self-defense Force F-35s disappeared and apparently crashed about 85 miles from Misawa in northern Japan. We and the Japanese have been searching the area ever since. Some parts of the aircraft have been recovered, but the pilot’s body and the remainder are still missing in seas about 5,000 feet deep. Soon ? if they haven’t already ? other nations with other motives will join the search. If Russia, China or nations allied to them find parts of the lost F-35, some of its secrets may be discovered with them. For example, if one of the aircraft’s several computers are recovered, more secrets will pour from it than water. When a Soviet ballistic missile submarine was lost in 1968, the CIA had the “Glomar Explorer” ship built to recover it from a depth of more than 16,000 feet.

There can be no doubt the Tehran regime is trying to increase pressure on Mr. Trump to drop the economy-strangling sanctions. The mullahs may learn that Mr. Trump is cut from hickory, not Obama soft pine. Russia stands all but alone calling Iranian mischief as a “baseless accusation.” America has simply tried to keep a lid on mullah-manufactured Middle East mischief as a service to the nations that can’t help, or won’t. This is not the first time the U.S. Navy has taken the lead in protecting the shipping fleets of the world. U.S. warships protected tankers and container ships harassed by Iranian naval ships during the wind-down of the Iran-Iraq war in 1987. The attacks stopped after U.S. destroyers shelled Iranian oil platforms used to stage the attacks. Before committing to war, or even to pin-prick retaliation, it’s important to gauge the impact of Iran’s bad behavior. So far, it’s not much. Oil spiked briefly 4.5 percent to $62 a barrel following attacks, then settled lower than in the previous week. As a measured response, the president could summon a coalition of oil-importing nations to provide naval escorts for Persian Gulf shipping. That should satisfy the European Union, perhaps fatally addicted to appeasement, whose leaders counsel watchful waiting. China and India have a serious interest in the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, the source of half of their oil imports. Japan, South Korea and the Philippines count on the Gulf for three-quarters of their imports. Though a minor customer for Middle East oil, America has played an outsized role in keeping that energy flowing into the world economy.

A threat to the global oil supply imperils the global economy. Iran’s menacing behavior toward oil shipments moving past its shores is just such a threat. The community of nations cringes at the notion of the United States acting as the world’s policeman. The American people do, too. But when conflict erupts on the high seas, as on land, who but the Americans are expected to do something about it. Civility may someday outlast malevolence, but not today. Iran is proof of that. Even while Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe attempted to mediate peace with the Islamic republic in Tehran recently, a Japanese oil tanker moving through the Gulf of Oman was hit by something bad, probably a magnetic mine sowed by Iranian amphibious forces. A Norwegian tanker received the same unfriendly treatment. So much for the Persian tradition of treating guests better than family. A more modern Iranian tradition is to oppose the United States in every deed and nearly every word. The one exception was the 2015 Iranian Nuclear Deal, in which the regime agreed to President Obama’s request to slow down its quest for nuclear weapons in return for hundreds of billions of dollars and inviting commercial opportunities. President Trump’s decision to halt the nonsense, reimpose economic sanctions and hold the mullahs’ feet to the fire has, predictably, rekindled Islamic wrath. Retaliation by targeting oil shipments in the Persian Gulf have occurred twice recently, damaging six tankers, with a denial of Tehran’s involvement. Taken together with the announcement that Iran intends to pay no attention to the limit on its enriched-uranium stockpile, as agreed to in Mr. Obama’s celebrated nuclear deal.

There’s a new mental health condition in town and it’s called ? video gaming. The World Health Organization just revised its disease classification manual to stipulate that the compulsive playing of video games is a psychological condition called “gaming disorder.” A more apt name for it is Parents Who Enable Their Kids Syndrome. “We come across parents who are distraught, not only because they’re seeing their child drop out of school, but because they’re seeing an entire family structure fall apart,” Dr. Henrietta Bowden-Jones, spokeswoman for Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists, told The Associated Press. In other words: Parents let their children play video games all day instead of making them go to school, go to work or, move out and lead an adult life ? so the distress that naturally results has led to this dimwitted decision at the U.N.-affiliated WHO. And it is dimwitted because once it’s recognized that video gaming is a mental health condition, then the next logical step to take is to develop the cure. As Shekhar Saxena, the director of WHO’s department for mental health and substance abuse, put it, the recognition of gaming disorder will open doors to meet “the need and the demand for treatment in many parts of the world.” But let’s not find the solution in a prescription bottle. The answer for so-called gaming disorder is much easier than that ? so much easier, in fact, that it can be summed up in a single word: Unplug. Pull the cord. Hit the off button. Lock the PS4 in the closet. No need to drug the kids. Truly, we just need better parents ? more disciplined, stronger, committed parenting ? and much, if not all, of this gaming disorder nonsense would simply go away.