More from Blankley-

Regarding the North Korean threat, Jim Hoagland, The Washington Post's esteemed and balanced foreign affairs columnist, wrote over the weekend: "Thursday night's fragmented argument over Kerry's championing of bilateral talks with North Korea and Bush's insistence on the value of multilateral talks... illustrated the triumph of... verbal dexterity over reality."

"Kim Jong Il is interested in nuclear bombs, not in a particular format for talks. His covert betrayal of the nonproliferation agreement struck with a trusting Democratic administration and its overt belligerent defiance of Bush's tougher approach make that clear. But neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Bush could voice that inconvenient reality Thursday night."

The same could be said about both candidates public comments regarding Iran's nuclear objectives. They both debate various modalities of working with Britain, France, Russia and the United Nations to induce Iran to stand down from her nuclear aspirations.

The grim reality is that neither country would appear to have any intention of backing down. Thus, very soon (if not already), the world will be faced with two new nuclear powers, one led by a lunatic, and the other led by fanatical Islamists committed to rolling back the advance of Western civilization and wiping out Israel.

North Korea is notorious for selling its most advanced weapons to the highest bidder, while Iran is the world's premier backer of terrorists. But even if they were not to proliferate their dreaded nuclear capacity, they both must be presumed to be willing to use such weapons either actually, or as blackmail devices, for their own state purposes.

It is not for nothing that President Bush listed Iran and North Korea, along with Iraq, as the axis of evil in his 2002 State of the Union address. At the time, commentators giggled and smirked at the metaphor. But whether they constitute an axis, or are merely separate sources of extreme danger, three years on the danger list is no longer theoretical — but imminently actual.

And, as it is increasingly apparent, even extreme international diplomatic blocking actions are not likely to stop Iran and North Korea from their nuclear quest.

So, if diplomacy fails, what will the president of the United States do about it in 2005? President Bush has said that such nuclear status is unacceptable, but continues to express confidence in diplomacy. Unlike Mr. Kerry, the president is committed to making operational a missile defense system. While that is necessary, regretfully, it will not be up and running in time to constitute a full check against the imminent threat.

Mr. Kerry continues to limit himself to expressing confidence in his ability to solve the danger diplomatically. Also, and significantly, unlike the president he opposes the development of nuclear "bunker-buster" technology, which is being developed specifically to deal with North Korea's and Iran's nuclear capabilities.

It is understandable that in a closely fought presidential election, neither candidate would find it appealing to talk of his contingent plans for war with a possible nuclear adversary. It would be even less appealing, one supposes, for either candidate to admit that if it came to it, he would just accept the nuclear status of Iran and North Korea and hope for the best. But I, for one, would like to know which candidate, if either, would acquiesce to such conditions and which, if either, would be prepared to fight.

So far, a remarkably incurious Washington press corps has not chosen to challenge the candidates to explain beyond their platitudinous paeans to the doubtful efficacy of diplomacy in the face of belligerent madness.

Thanks, Tony, for teeing up an increasingly important issue that the candidates, the Washington press, and the voters don't want to confront. The ostrich apporach will not work here, unless we are resgined to these two rogue states joining the Nuke Club and, in the case of N. Korea, becoming a sort of Nuclear Wal-Mart. But what are the workable options? Diplomacy - I think Blankley and recent history with these two nations demonstrates that diplomacy is an unlikely path to success (at least without a more concerted and united effort by nations with credible military power). But the military option is ugly, too. We don't have the ground forces to deal with Iran without abandoning Iraq to the crazies and airstrikes likely won't do it for Iran. Any attack on N. Korea may mean tens of thousands of dead S. Koreans and U.S. military and civilians. (I'm not without sympathy for the citizens of N. Korea, who are ruled by a thug and his minions. N. Korea is more of a criminal venture than a nation in the modern sense.) Maybe this is why the ostrich approach is so universely popular.