The Australian publishes a hard—headed op—ed piece by Michael Costello on the stark choice facing Israel as Iran pushes ahead on the path to nuclear weapons: either strike to destroy the nuclear program, as it did in Iraq long ago, or be destroyed. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency cannot be relied—upon to police Iraq. Here is the nub:

Although there were moments when we stood on the brink of nuclear war, each side accepted the terrible logic of mutual assured destruction and stepped back. This is not true of Iran's leadership. Their beliefs embrace death and martyrdom. To rely on a nuclear—armed Iran to show restraint would be a triumph of hope against reason.

So, sometime soon, Israel will be faced with this choice. Does it allow an implacable enemy determined to obliterate it as a nation to develop the means by which it can achieve that end? Or does it rely on the international community to protect it, an international community that cannot even agree on action to protect the hundreds of thousands of people being subjected to genocide right now in Darfur? Or should it simply "go gentle into that good night"? No, I don't think so. I think it will "rage against the dying of the light".

Thomas  9 17 04