During the 1960s and 70s, writes Gil Troy, both the United Nations and the Olympics represented a hopefulness about a future very different from the bloody first half of the 20th century. The former provided a forum where nations could come together to work through their differences over a negotiating table; the latter an opportunity for people all over the world to channel rivalries through sport rather than armed conflict. For Troy, and others, that image was shattered at the 1972 Munich Olympics, where, 50 years ago this week, Palestinian terrorists murdered eleven Israeli athletes and a German policeman:

Suddenly, the Munich Olympics were defined by the Palestinian terrorists in those ghoulish stocking caps and the discordant sweatsuits, who sauntered into the Olympic village. After negotiating for hours, the Germans botched the rescue operation. . . . It was obvious to everyone I knew—mourning these young Israeli heroes, one of whom tried barricading the door with his body—that these Olympic games should end.

This tragedy offered the International Olympic Committee (IOC) an opportunity to do penance for greenlighting the infamous 1936 Hitler games. Yet, like something out of a novel, Avery Brundage, the same mean-spirited, severe-looking, anti-Semitic International Olympics Committee president who approved Hitler’s hosting then, insisted the “games must go on” in Germany 36 years later.

Remarkably, the more Palestinian terrorists terrorized innocents, the more international recognition their cause achieved. Two years later, the UN welcomed the head of the PLO. Yasir Arafat, the grandfather of modern terrorism, became the first representative of a non-member organization to address the General Assembly—sporting a holster to back up his menacing tone.

Since then, the UN has often functioned as the Third World dictators’ debating society, while sports have become increasingly politicized.

Last Sunday marked the eighth anniversary of a Saudi-led alliance’s intervention in the Yemeni civil war, intended to defeat the Iran-backed Houthi militia that had overthrown the previous government. In the wake of the rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran, diplomats are hoping that the talks between the Saudis and the Houthis—which have been ongoing since last summer—will finally succeed in ending the war. To Nadwa Al-Dawsari, such an outcome seems highly unlikely:

The Houthis’ military gains have allowed them to dictate the path of international diplomacy in Yemen. They know Saudi Arabia is desperate to extricate itself and the international community wants the Yemen problem to go away. They do not recognize and refuse to negotiate with the [Riyadh-supported] Presidential Leadership Council or other Yemeni factions that they cast as “Saudi mercenaries.”

Indeed, even as the Houthis were making progress in talks with the Saudis, the rebel group continued to expand its recruitment, mobilization, and stockpiling of arms during last year’s truce as Iran significantly increased its weapons shipments. The group also carried out a series of attacks. . . . On March 23, the Houthis conducted a military drill close to the Saudi border to remind the Saudis of “the cost of no agreement and further concessions.”

The Houthis are still part and parcel of Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance.” With the Houthis gaining international political recognition, . . . Iran will have a greater chance to expand its influence in Yemen with the blessing of Western powers. The international community is eager for a “success story” in Yemen, even if that means a sham political settlement that will likely see the civil war continue. A deal with the Houthis is Saudi Arabia’s desperate plea to wash its hands of Yemen, but in the long term it could very well position Iran to threaten regional and international security. More importantly, it might set Yemen on a course of protracted conflict that will create vast ungoverned spaces.

Meanwhile, tensions in Yemen between Saudi Arabia and its ostensible ally, the United Arab Emirates, are rising, while the Houthis are developing the capability to launch missiles at Israel or to block a crucial Middle Eastern maritime chokepoint in the Red Sea.