A Point of No Return is a deadly serious matter. The term began in aviation, to indicate that point in an ocean crossing at which the pilot no longer had enough fuel to return to land. The phrase also has a political meaning, which has an even deadlier significance. Zev Chafets in JWR:

In an interview in an Israeli newspaper this week, Giora Eiland, Israel’s national security adviser, made a startling statement: November will be the “point of no return” for taking out the Iranian nuclear program.

“Point of no return” is a phrase with a history. In 1981, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin demanded to know when Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant at Osirak, Iraq, would reach it. Military intelligence then, as always, was muddy. Some of Begin’s advisers counseled patience. Others warned that delay could be fatal. The most influential advocate of the go-for-it approach was Begin’s minister of defense - Ariel Sharon.

Iran is now on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. This week, President Bush said categorically that he will not let that happen.

We know that Bush keeps his word on matters of this sort. Therefore, we know that the Iran nuclear capability will be taken out, if such capability exists as described. If Giora Eiland, Israel’s national security adviser, is correct, then Iran will be attacked next month, if not before. Of course, Eiland’s estimate of timing of this particular Rubicon may be incorrect. Still, let’s suppose that it is correct.

One of the Most Serious, and unclear, issues of Campaign 2004

Do you not think that this is a subject that the American electorate should be apprised of, if it is to take place either imminently, or over the course of the next four years? Do you not think that both Presidential candidates owe the American people the benefit of knowing their positions on such an issue — an attack on yet another sovereign nation whose WMD program we fear?

Do we not want further elaboration on President Bush’s plan to take out the Iranian nuke facilities? Do we not want to know if Kerry would do the same? Do we not want our fellow citizens, including those who favor incontrovertible proof of WMD’s, to have their explicit say on this matter? Ought we to hear from John Kerry whether he endorses preemptive action to take out Iranian nuclear facilities? Ought the American people to know either that unilateral American action in Iran passes the Global Test, or that this caricature is more or less true:

Updating John Kerry

Kerry’s proposal to make nice with the Mullahs was sharply rebuffed on Sunday, amid much sabre rattling about Iran’s desire to “crush America,” as you know:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry, who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be “irrational” for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad. “We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others,” Asefi told a weekly news conference.

Therefore, with Kerry’s former position inoperative, and the commitment of President Bush to attack Iran if Israel does not, do we not need to hear in the most explicit terms from both candidates on this before November 2? Do we not need to know what the US will do if it is Israel that takes out the Iranian facilities, and Iran decides to carry through on its pledge to react “most severely” (CNN) to such a provocation.

ADDENDUM

I forgot to check to see if Michael Ledeen had written anything new.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 5th, 2004 at 8:40 am and is filed under General, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.