Although Holbrooke's remarks were probably meant in the best spirit of bipartisanship, they bring to mind some interesting questions about the geopolitical ramifications of this election with regard to the status of Israel.

Israel in particular is in dire straits depending on the outcome of this election. On one hand we have George Bush, who has been a strong supporter of the Jewish state and who will take some of the heat off Israel by keeping US forces in the region and be the focus of Extremist Islamist aggression. On the other we have John Kerry, who has stated that he would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within six months of becoming president.

Six months! Even in the best case scenario, no reasonable person can expect a nation (Iraq) to develop an effective and secure democracy in a land which has never had personal freedoms exercised and which sits between multiple Islamic states just waiting for the opportunity to pounce. Any person who would submit that Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran would leave the new Iraqi government alone in the absence of US forces needs to see their psychiatrist immediately.

Even Germany and Japan couldn't be left to their own devices after World War 2 within a few short years of their defeat. US Forces still remain in Germany and Japan and while their roles aren't for direct supervisory control of those nations, the presence of US Forces in these regions serve to stabilize relations and the economies of these former enemy's turned allies of the United States.

Has the American populace become so desirous of instant gratification that we now look at war and liberation as a quick and tidy operation that we can undertake on the cheap and on the fly. Subsequently abandoning our handiwork to the forces arrayed against it with the hopes that it's enemies will leave it be under some sort of gentleman's agreement.

But back to Israel, should John Kerry be elected on November 2nd, I'm quite sure the that the government of Irsrael will have no choice but to immediately strike at the heart of Iran's nuclear energy and weapons programs. The Israeli government's first and primary responsibility is to protect their population. Iran has stated repeatedly that should they acquire a nuclear weapon, that they WILL use it against Israel. They haven't said they will use it if Israel attacks them, they haven't said they will consider it's use on Israel, they have said UNEQUIVOCALLY, that they will USE said weapon on Israel.

Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Everyone knows this, no sane person armed with any knowledge of even half the facts can rationally deny that Iran does not wish to develop nuclear arms and is moving in that direction as you read these words. Iran has developed missile technology in coordination with North Korea to deliver it's nuclear weapon, and they intend to use it on Israel.

What is to be done about this? Well first and foremost, it's Israel's decision on what "they" must do, but make no mistake that they are intently watching the US election before they play their hand.

Israel knows that George Bush and his administration will do everything it can to protect our ally Israel. This policy is a function of international treaties, bilateral treaties, pledges to the United Nations and our European allies, and the policies of the Bush administration.

John Kerry has not offered any such promises to Israel, in fact he's offered many different opinions on what sort of policy his administration whill have toward the Jewish state. He's said publically that he's for the Israeli security wall and in the same day that he's against it. He's told one group that he will stand for Israeli independence and security, then told another group that he he will work to create a neutral ground within Israel for Islamic and Palestinian groups to adminsiter along with the UN and Israel.

If I were the Israelis, I'd be very very worried about this election. Should the tide swing over to John Kerry, it's probably advisable that Israel immediately set itself once again on a war footing and pre-emptively strike out hard at Iran before US Forces leave. It's hard for me to say that, because I don't like the prospects for US Forces to be drawn into defending Israel from invasion by Arab states, securing Iraq and Afganistan and also being somewhat forced to enter Iran to continue what Israel starts. But I'm afraid that such is the only course of action open to the Israeli's government should they be faced with a US withdrawl basically announced on November 3rd.

A Bush victory would have a calming effect on the Israeli's. They would be assured that the US would be remaining in the region to continue to bring pressure on terrorist elements in the region. The presence of US forces in Iraq also serves to keep Iran somewhat occupied with their own potential threats to their national security.

Iran is a terrorist state, of that there is no doubt. There is no doubt that a second Bush presidency would be focused somewhat on the Iranian question, and there very possibly would be an invasion of Iran during the course of a second Bush term. Such an invasion is NOT inevitable. Iran can return to the bargaining table with the US, but it must be noted that the US has not declared war on Iran, while the Iranians HAVE declared war on the US. Iranian officially for years has "declared a jihad" on the US. Iranian officials have publically stated that as long as the US exists, that a state of war will exist between the Iranian and US people. They have NEVER relented on this position, they have never softened it. Even in the wake of having the bulk of the mobile US military in Iraq, they still call for attacks on the US and her interests abroad. It's almost an amazing propostion to think that Iran would continue to call for it's agents and friends to attack us given recent history with Afganistan and Iraq, but that's still their position, as insane as it may sound.

There is a bight spot of hope in the question of Iran, Israel and the United States. Yasser Arafat has fallen ill and will most probably not be able to continue as leader of the Palestinian Authority. While I do not wish anyone harm, Arafat's long tenure as the de-facto leader of the Palestinian people has produced no positive lasting affect on peace in the region. Perhaps, the new leadership of the Palestinians will be more moderate in their outlook and accept the concessions of the Israelis for the establishment of a Palestinian state and not continue to argue that the Israelis owe them more and more with each concession. Perhaps a new Palestinian leadership can encourage the militants in the region to stop firing homemade rockets in to Israel on a daily basis. Perhaps a new Palestinian leader can show the Arab world that the Israelis and the Palestinians can agree to disagree on religion and politics but still live together as peaceful neighbors. I hope for these possibilities with every fiber of my being whilst my common sense tells me to be realistic and accept the probably inevitability that Palestinian controlled areas of the region will descend into further chaos when Arafat is no longer in the picture.

Palestinian civil war is almost certain, it will be an ugly and difficult situation for everyone in the region, it will involve Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and possibly even Egypt as different factions emerge and vie for power. We can only hope that whoever emerges on top has some sense of reality and common sense and brings a moderate outlook to Palestinian policy.

Each of these issues are intricately bound in the War on Terror, the Battle of Iraq and the Presidential election in the US. Each day brings the region further and further to the brink as long as Palestinians continue to make unrealistic demands and continue to attack civilians. No progress can be made when Iran declares that their development of a nuclear weapon will result in the annihilation of Israel. No progress can be made while US political candidates criticize the development of democratic states in the region and undermine all efforts to bring stability.

These questions and issues will dominate our lives for the rest of this decade and probably longer. The region has been ignored for too long by the world community and now must be addressed, much like Hitler was ignored by the US and much of the world as Europe polarized. We must continue to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East. This is a position which only president Bush supports and is actively committed to. It's yet another reason to support his re-election even in the certainty that it will cost American lives, American money and certainly lead to some measure of dissent and discontent here while we bring freedom and security to the greater Middle East.

--Jason