Focus, People A life-or-death election - By Anne Bayefsky

(From Naomi Ragen)

Since the time of Hitler, civilization has never been so close to the brink
of total catastrophe. This American election will decide whether
civilization as we know it will survive. As much as economic questions are
currently front and center, with blame to go all round, this is not an
election primarily about corporate greed, or individuals living beyond their
means, or government neglect of economic oversight. Nor is it about whether
we should have gone into Iraq where, like it or not, American boots on the
ground have begun to create an emerging democracy. This election is about
whether there will be a nuclear holocaust.

Alarmist? I sure hope so. Isn't it about time that we got to the point about
the stakes in this election? How many more pundits do we have to watch
talking about the minutae — a candidate's look, an accent, a stumble, a
slogan? We have four weeks to talk about the thing that matters most: a
nuclear-armed Iran, and which candidate will prevent it.

The question that must be put point-blank to both presidential and
vice-presidential candidates is: "Will you authorize the use of force in
time to stop Iran from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear weapons — yes
or no?"

Wouldn't your beliefs for and against abortion fade if you thought nobody
would be born into a world fit for living things? Wouldn't your worries
about health care pale if you thought the mutilation, cancer, and death of
millions upon millions, sure to follow nuclear war, would occur in your
lifetime? Wouldn't your concerns about affording a college education fade if
you thought your children will have the grim task of fighting a war of
horrifying devastation instead of going to school?

Wake up. There is a genocidal maniac on the verge of reaching the point of
no return in his ability to make a nuclear weapon. A fanatic with the stated
ambition to murder five million Jews living in Israel — to start. A villain
who has already funded and armed a terrorist war against the Jewish state
that in 2006 forced one-third of Israel's population to live underground for
almost a month. In other words, an individual who is ready, willing, and
able to give the nuclear trigger to a terrorist group — to terrorists who
cannot be bargained with because they prefer their death to your freedom. As
for the suggestion that the Mullahs are more powerful and nicer guys, the
millions brutalized and subjugated in Iran tell a different story.

I don't know why it is possible after the Holocaust, to have such widespread
denial of man's capacity for evil. Nor do I understand why Ahmadinejad's
virulent anti-semitism and call for the destruction of Israel are dismissed
as irrelevant factoids when calculating the Iranian threat. Time has a story
about
"experts" who believe that Iran seeks an atomic bomb not because they have
any interest in using it or passing it to others who will, but to deter, to
ensure its security. According to Thomas Fringar, chairman of the U.S.
National Intelligence Council: "Iran's biggest strategic concern is
obtaining security assurances and accords," and it is the United States
"which the Iranians consider a mortal threat." These "experts" have it
exactly backwards. If Iran were really driven by such security concerns,
these concerns could be alleviated without spending a nickel — by stopping
its nuclear-weapons campaign and its funding of terrorists.

No amount of ignorance, stupidity, or wishful thinking will change the
reality that there are people who are prepared to kill you and your family
for no good reason at all. Not because of poverty, or envy, or
discrimination or because of anything you've done. But because they hate you
— whether you live in Jerusalem, Washington, London, or Paris. They hate
everything you stand for — liberty, tolerance, equality. And their minds are
made up. Closed — period — to the entreaties of naïve foreign diplomats or
would-be presidents and vice presidents.

During the vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden denied the undeniable fact
that Senator Obama said he would sit down with the Iranian President without
preconditions: "Barack Obama, he did not say 'sit down with Ahmadinejad.'"
Perhaps he should read Barack's website: "The Obama-Biden Plan: Obama
supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without
preconditions."

So let's look at the differences between the presidential tickets on what to
do about the nuclear weapons ambitions of a would-be mass murderer.

On the one side:

Vice-Presidential Debate

DEBATE MODERATOR: "Let's move to Iran and Pakistan….Senator Biden. What's
the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan?"

SENATOR BIDEN: "…I always am focused…I have been focusing on for a long
time, along with Barack, on Pakistan….Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be
very, very destabilizing…[T]hey are not close to getting a nuclear weapon
that's able to be deployed."…

SENATOR BIDEN: [on Iran] "Our friends and allies have been saying, Gwen,
"Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk."…And if we don't…what makes you think the
allies are going to sit with us?"


Ask yourself: does preventing a nuclear holocaust involve winning a
popularity contest?

First Presidential Debate

Senator Obama [on preventing a nuclear Iran]: "Now here's what we need to
do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree…that we're going to be able
to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation
with…Russia and China…[W]e are also going to have to…engage in tough direct
diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator
McCain."

News flash: Russia and China have told us to take a hike on tough sanctions,
Barack. Any other ideas?

Obama Website:

If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic
pressure and political isolation.


"If" it continues? Anybody in Iran trembling?

And on the other side:


Vice-Presidential Debate


DEBATE MODERATOR: "Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear
Iran? Which is the greater threat?"

GOVERNOR PALIN: "An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely
dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons
period."


First Presidential Debate

Senator McCain: "If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential
threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region…[W]e
cannot [allow] a second Holocaust. …Have no doubt about the ultimate result
of them acquiring nuclear weapons…What Senator Obama doesn't seem to
understand that if without preconditions you sit down across the table from
someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that
country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments. This is
dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous. And so we just have a
fundamental difference of opinion."



Barack Obama isn't just inexperienced. It isn't naiveté that drives him. I
take him at his word. He and his vice-presidential candidate believe in
"talk, talk, talk" regardless of the hourglass or the stakes or the
intentions of the person across the table. No amount of learning on the job
is going to change their way of thinking. Approving the use of force to
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a Rubicon they will not cross
— before civilization as we know it comes to an end.

So when you cast your ballot this election, make no mistake: you are voting
for or against a nuclear holocaust. Not because Barack Obama wants such a
horror, but because he will not prevent it. He will still be talking when
the point of no return in Iran's nuclear program is reached. And the balance
of power in the world will — with terrible consequences — have changed
forever.

— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute
and at Touro College. She is also editor of
www.EyeontheUN.org .