Post 9/11, we wasted trillions on invading Iraq in 2003, following a colossal intelligence failure that concluded that Iraq was producing a threatening nuclear capability. And this is despite Iraq having nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. Several who were much closer to the G.W. Bush Administration than we were have indicated Mr. Bush was actively considering going into Iraq before 9/11 — most likely because of influence from the late Ahmed Chalabi and his organization, the Iraqi National Congress . Mr. Chalabi’s 2015 obituary in the New York Times said this. "Mr. Chalabi’s contention, shared by United States intelligence agencies, was that Mr. Hussein possessed weapons of mass-destruction…." A 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that false information from sources affiliated with the Iraqi National Congress was used to support key intelligence community assessments on Iraq and was widely distributed in intelligence products prior to the war. However, and as the obituary notes, broad support for Mr. Chalabi also came from Congress and President Bill Clinton: “In 1998, he helped persuade Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act, which was signed by Mr. Clinton and declared it the policy of the United States to replace Mr. Hussein’s government with a democratic one.” In fact, one could not have had any senior national security policy job in Washington D.C. during this period without having seen Mr. Chalabi. However, some of our allies thought that the Shiite Chalabi was likely an Iranian agent. Whatever Mr. Chalabi’s connections, he certainly shared responsibility for the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, depose Mr. Saddam’s regime and begin a decade-long involvement in Iraq at the cost of trillions of US dollars.

Despite spending trillions of mostly borrowed dollars, the U.S. has not done well in the post-Cold War environment, as reflected by our diminished worldwide standing and influence. We hadn’t learned much about Mikhail Gorbachev in March 1985, when he was first named General Secretary of the Soviet Union after Konstantin Chernenko died, and as we began the Nuclear and Space Talks (NST) in Geneva. The Soviets had walked out of all arms control talks after Mr. Reagan introduced strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in March 1983 — and initiated a global propaganda campaign to defeat Mr. Reagan’s November 1984 re-election. After that failure, the Soviets sought to block SDI in resuming these “new” arms-control talks, in which we participated. In effect, it was SDI that brought the soviets “back to the table.” Mr. Gorbachev introduced “Perestroika” (Russian for political restructuring) and “Glasnost” (Russian for Openness) in 1985 and early 1986, exposing all the warts and scars of the failed and totally corrupt Soviet socialist system. Then following Mr. Reagan’s October 1986 refusal to give up SDI in Reykjavik and his June 1987 “Tear down this wall!” challenge in Berlin, our talks progressed markedly. We achieved the first-ever verifiable arms-control treaties to reduce nuclear arm. The Soviet Union crumbled in 1991. The Cold War ended. For Mr. Gorbachev, the war was over - and lost—but for a 39-year-old KGB Officer, Vladimir Putin, a new war was just beginning. What followed for us was a lengthy period of “head in the sand” national security policy, as we generally ignored the threat from radical Islam, despite obvious reasons to take it very seriously.

So, the situation is as follows. Europe shuts down its efficient fossil-fuel energy plants and shifts over to higher-cost, less reliable, and less flexible renewables made by the Chinese using coal-fired power. How does this mitigate global warming? And how does it reduce poverty and increase the real incomes of Europeans? Those in the Chinese leadership probably laugh at the Europeans and feel they have achieved some revenge for the European 19th-century interventions into China. The British had been buying Chinese tea, but the Chinese were not buying anything of equal value, so the Brits began selling opium to the Chinese ― causing a high rate of addiction among the Chinese population. The British then demanded certain trade and other concessions from the weak Chinese government of the time, followed by concessions to the French, Russians, and Americans. The Chinese resentment of foreigners grew, cumulating in the “Boxer Rebellion” (1899-1901). The Western powers won the struggle, which helped fuel chaos and civil wars in China and the Japanese invasions in the late 1930s. By the time of the Chinese communist takeover in 1949, China was an impoverished country ― great humiliation from a country that centuries earlier had been richer than Europe. Now that China has rebuilt much of its economic strength and the West has been weakened by self-induced suicidal woke green policies, in part covertly underwritten by the Russians, the Chinese quite understandably are engaged in payback. If you want to know what the unbridled “green future” will look like, watch Europe with soaring energy costs, blackouts, food shortages, and increasing unemployment and poverty.

All of this boosts the price and supply stranglehold Russia will have on Europe, including Britain, which is increasingly dependent on power from Europe. (Note: One of the five power interconnectors with Europe failed during the lack of wind crisis.) The sensible action would be for Britain to reembrace nuclear and allow environmentally sound fracking as done in the U.S. ― but this would require the public and political class to free themselves from the environmental extremists. The steep surge in power prices and the increasing unreliability of supply has caused ― and will cause even more ― rises in price levels and the shutdown of many companies, thus adding to the unemployment woes. Low-income and poor people, of course, suffer more from inflation than the rich. If gasoline prices increase two or three times, it can be very painful for a low-income worker with a long commute but pocket change for a wealthy person. In addition to the price increases, the British are now suffering food shortages because of power problems. The environmental extremists will often demand a greater subsidy to the low-income and poor to offset the higher food and energy costs, which will result in higher taxes and/or more inflation ― but they have never been known as people who could think one step ahead, let alone three. The Chinese have stated their intentions to greatly expand their solar and windmill production capabilities for foreign markets. The irony is that the Chinese are building even more low-cost coal-fired power plants to expand their ability to produce more wind and solar for the rest of the world.

The green-energy future has arrived - in Europe - and it is not a pretty sight. Even more than in the U.S., many European politicians claimed that it was possible to go “green” without disastrous costs - but that lie has now come home. Natural gas and electricity prices have been surging as supply is being artificially restricted. The winds in the North Sea stopped blowing, the wind turbines stilled, and U.K. energy prices surged “to 11 times normal levels.” The irony is that several years ago, vast deposits of natural gas were found in Britain (an estimated 51 years’ worth using today’s technology). But instead of rejoicing in the windfall, the Brits banned fracking-at a time when the gas they get from their North Sea wells is declining. The argument was made that the loss of gas power could be made up with wind and solar. Of course, solar only generates power during sunny days, and wind farms require the right weather conditions for optimal output. Economical ways to “store” excess solar and wind energy when it is generated are lacking. The result is that with the drop in wind power, Britain was forced to restart some of its coal stations. Britain’s problems were self-inflicted by listening uncritically to the greens. Historically, Britain was blessed with plenty of coal to fuel its power stations. And then cheap and clean natural gas from the North Sea was found. As the North Sea fields were depleted, LNG was imported, many wind turbines were erected, and power interconnectors to Europe were built to balance fluctuating supplies. The Russians are increasing their gas supplies to the Europeans through existing pipelines, LNG exports, and soon through the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

The North has a reported nuclear arsenal of 30 to 60 nuclear weapons that can be mated to ballistic missiles. So, if you’re living in South Korea or Japan or anywhere else in Northeast Asia, North Korea is an existential nuclear threat. Eventually, it could be an existential nuclear threat to the U.S. Getting North Korea to denuclearize will continue to be a challenge, especially given the nuclear and missile progress Mr. Kim has made with these programs during the last 10 years. But living with a nuclear North Korea will be an enduring nightmare for South Korea, Japan, the region and beyond. A nuclear arms race in the region, with allies like South Korea and Japan pursuing their own nuclear weapons, despite U.S. extended deterrence commitments, is a real likelihood. Mr. Kim made it clear in January 2021 that the state must improve the dire economic situation in the North. Prior to COVID-19 and the North’s self-imposed isolation, a United Nations and North Korea joint study reported that over 40% of the population in the North was malnourished. One can only imagine what it is now. While focusing on the economic challenges, Mr. Kim also recently announced that North Korea will also develop “ultramodern tactical nuclear weapons, hypersonic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.” And given what we’ve seen over the past 10 years, it’s likely North Korea will be partially if not fully successful with these pursuits. Suppose Mr. Kim decides that nuclear weapons are more important. In that case, the U.S. and allies and strategic partners have no alternative but to enhance containment, with additional sanctions, and increase deterrence efforts to counter the nuclear and conventional threat from North Korea.

During his 10 years of authoritarian rule in North Korea, its leader, Kim Jong-un, failed to accomplish his two primary objectives: normalization of relations with the U.S. and acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. When Mr. Kim took over from his father, Kim Jong-il, who died of a reported heart attack in December 2011, there was hope that this young leader, who had studied in Switzerland, would pursue a policy of economic reform and political opening up to the outside world. To succeed, North Korea would be willing to commit to complete and verifiable denuclearization in return for security assurances and eventual normal relations with the U.S., which would provide the North with international legitimacy and access to financial institutions for economic development purposes. Over the past 10 years, we have seen a leader determined to normalize relations with the U.S., and with confidence that he can convince the U.S. to accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. This determination to retain nuclear weapons while seeking normal relations with the U.S. has been the consistent strategy of North Korea for the past 28 years. What’s constant from these years of negotiations and temporary successes, was North Korea’s determination to have and retain nuclear weapons, regardless of any agreement. What was also constant was the North’s determination to normalize relations with the U.S. During Mr. Kim’s 10 years in power, he has raced to become a formidable nuclear weapons state, launching over 120 missiles, including two intercontinental missiles, and conducting four nuclear tests, to include a thermonuclear test in 2017.

With Yogi Berra’s cautionary note in mind, let’s think about the coming year. In the November elections, the Republicans will take the majority in the House (with about 255 seats) and the Senate (with about 52 seats). While winning federal elections, the Republicans, who now hold a 27-23 advantage in governorships, will manage to lose two of the 36 gubernatorial races being held in 2022. Former President Donald Trump’s aura of inevitability will be dimmed by his endorsements, some of whom will lose, and some of whom will embarrass themselves and, by extension, their patron. After the midterm elections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will announce her retirement. As always, weakness is provocative. Either Russia or China, or both, will accelerate their international hooliganism. After the midterm elections, President Biden will announce that he is not running for president. In anticipation of this, potential candidates for the nomination will begin to make themselves obvious no later than the third quarter of 2022. Despite the propaganda, growth in global sales of SUVs will be greater than the growth in global sales of electric vehicles. The NCAA swimming finals in March will be overwhelmed by questions about the fairness of allowing a biological male (University of Pennsylvania’s Lia Thomas) to compete as a woman. The public health community will acknowledge that the “vaccines” are not in fact “vaccines” that preclude transmission or uptake of the virus, but rather are therapeutics. At some point, that might lead to people being rational about a highly contagious respiratory virus that, eventually, is going to infect everyone.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has a clear goal - weaken the U.S. relative to Russia. Watch what he does recently. By the end of the Trump administration, the U.S. had overtaken Russia in oil production, but even so Russia still produces twice as much oil per capita as the U.S. Oil and gas exports are the key sources of foreign exchange for Russia, accounting for 60 percent of their exports and about 30 percent of GDP. Mr. Putin needs to do everything in his power to keep oil and gas prices high and expand Russian exports. Oil prices were relatively high during the first decade of Putin’s reign, but they have been relatively low for the last decade, until this year. The Putin administration was greatly concerned about the fracking revolution taking place in the U. S. and elsewhere. To slow or stop fracking, the Russians poured money into U.S. environmental groups, which took up the anti-fracking mantra. Former President Trump was a disaster for Mr. Putin, in that he put in a series of policies to greatly encourage expanded oil and gas production in the U.S., which resulted in much lower prices - both in the U.S. and globally - and the U.S. becoming a major oil exporter. President Biden, on the other hand, has immediately killed the Keystone XL pipeline. Mr. Biden has also restored many regulations on the production of oil and gas, including fracking. All of this causes the price of oil and gas to rise and also greatly benefits Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin may well say to Mr. Biden , “I am happy as long as you continue to weaken the American economy and make Russia richer.”

When we look at statistics from the first full week of Omicron infections in the United States, nearly 80% of the patients had had a full series of a COVID-19 vaccine. About a third had received a booster dose. The statistical bottom line? The first CDC report on the Omicron variant in the US shows vaccination does not protect people against contracting the infection. Since that first week, the number of cases has jumped into the hundreds of thousands. That is a scary number unless you look at the actual impact. How many people have died in America from the Omicron variant? One. A man in his 50s with underlying health conditions has been the only reported Omicron death. Statistically speaking, one person out of a half-million infections is hardly worth closing down businesses, schools and the holidays. In fact, the CDC Covid Response Team reported “The most commonly reported symptoms were cough, fatigue, and congestion or runny nose.” The Statens Serum Institute in Denmark issued results of an early study they have done on Omicron and according to their report of the people who tested positive between November 22 and December 15, Omicron cases were three times less likely to be admitted to hospital than cases with other variants. If those studies and the ratio of infections to deaths in the United States both hold steady, Omicron may actually be a bit of good news. An overwhelming number of new COVID-19 cases in America are Omicron. If Omicron is the “wave” we face in the coming months, perhaps America and the world will be spared the flood of “severe illness and death”.