By Cliff Nichols

As Iran’s nuclear threat gains momentum daily, the big question now looming is how should our president respond? I would like Bush’s critics to answer that question. You know they will come forward later to criticize Bush for whatever he ultimately chooses to do.

Before offering us that opinion, however, you may consider the following facts to be germane. In recent weeks Iran has repeatedly expressed its genuine desire to wipe Israel off the face of the globe. Then, place that fact within the context of America’s ongoing battle against Islamist terrorists who bear a strong resemblance to some of Iran’s present leaders. From that, would it not follow that we also are most probably on Iran’s list of expendable nations. Next, add the intelligence obtained this week that Iran now has surface-to-surface missiles with a 2,000-kilometer range together with the fact that last Saturday they resumed their uranium enrichment program. Then consider that not only Israel, but many of our own troops presently live well within the perimeter of that nuclear threat. But it doesn’t stop there. So far, we have just a rough sketch of the threat Iran currently poses to people living in just their part of the world. Don’t forget to include in your analysis these other facts that could bring this threat to our shores. Consider the acknowledged technological feasibility of a suitcase bomb coupled with Iran’s probable access to a seemingly unending supply of suicide bombers. Then give serious thought to the implications of these facts in connection with the three Iranians who, fortunately, were arrested this week before they could enter the United States illegally through our pathetically porous Mexican border.

What a unique opportunity these facts present. We now have a chance to verify whether Bush’s critics really are as smart as they think — and often tell us — they are. You people know who you are — those whose political views resemble the Belafonte-Streisand-Schumer-Sheehan party line. You love to hate Bush for everything he does and never fail to criticize his every decision from a position of hindsight. You are the ones who contend simultaneously that he is as dumb as presidents come, and yet, also smart enough to successfully manipulate this country into submitting to an agenda you describe as the epitome of evil in every regard. It is you who I respectfully invite to bless the rest of us with your wisdom now — not later, after Bush’s ultimate strategy has become history. What do you think President Bush should do?

Is a preemptive strike appropriate, and if so, under what circumstances? Should we wait until we have verified beyond any doubt their actual possession of a nuclear bomb, or are we justified in taking action if we are only fairly certain they have one, or more? And, what about the assurances Iran has given that their nukes would only be used defensively. Should we believe them? Can we afford to? And, if we do, how could we ever determine in advance whether they might — if not now, someday — conspire with others to conceal an offensive use of one of their bombs? Can we be sure that one day they won’t just decide it would be a good thing to stuff one into a Samsonite and hand it off to one of their globe-trotting buddies as he or she is passing through Iraq International on a roundabout route to either our country (via Mexico?) or Israel? Then, you also may wish to throw into the mix China’s current alliance with Iran that exists, in large part, due to the fact that China relies on Iran for much, if not most, of its oil. Also, let’s not forget Russia. It has offered to enrich Iran’s uranium for it, if Iran is not allowed to, which suggests the existence of but another alliance we may need to be concerned about. Should we be concerned about Russia’s and China’s feelings before deciding whether to attack Iran preemptively, or does it really matter? After all, dead is dead. Does it really matter from where the missile that kills us is launched? Or, would we be better off doing nothing rather than risk sparking a desire on the part of either Russia or China, much less Iran, to send us a nuclear bomb? Are you willing to make book that they won’t anyway? What if you’re wrong? That brings us back to the thought that, because being dead is what it is, whether or not you are wrong really won’t matter much. On the other hand, let’s face it — is that really a foreign policy position that will sell very well at election time? Yet, on the other hand, isn’t that the risk inherent to any policy that defers to a diplomatic approach — if you’re wrong, sometimes it can mean you will be dead wrong?

So, now, what’s your answer? What should Bush do? Your answer today would be nice. After all, later may be too late. So, speak now or please be willing to forever hold your peace. Hopefully, your advice given today will be wise and will enable us all to remain alive long enough to determine whether or not you were right. Additionally, if you’re not willing to put your money where your mouth is when it matters the most, which is now, also please stop criticizing Bush’s past decisions with respect to Iraq as well. After all, when those decisions were made, they were made under circumstances very similar to those confronting us today with respect to Iran. If you think about it, you may even wish to thank him for those decisions. They just may have enabled you to continue to live long enough to even be able to enlighten the rest of us today with your after-the-fact hindsight-assisted wisdom.

(Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense/entertainment law in Santa Monica. He may be contacted at either 310-917-1083, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com or www.cliffnicholslaw.com, and you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com.)