So What Should be Done About Iran?

But how long do we wait?

Do we wake up one morning and see that the newly victorious Hamas Palestinian network has combined their efforts with al-Qaida, which has partnered underground with Iran to deliver a simultaneous suitcase nuclear attack in London, Paris, Rome, Washington, D.C., Jerusalem and Berlin all at the same time?

Will some brave John Kerry or Howard Dean like character step forward to become Neville Chamberlain in such an important hour?

So what should be done about Iran?

Trusting the United Nations to oversee Russia and to not allow enriched fissile materials to end up back in Iran's hands is about as competent as saying that the U.N. should be allowed to oversee Iraq's Oil-for-Food program.

In a poll out yesterday, fully 28 percent of the American people say that Iran is a serious and immediate threat to the United States. One year ago, that number was 16 percent. And something tells me the typically cowardly French did not change their position in such a harsh manner without some degree of intelligence telling them of an impending plan.

And when the chief cleric in Iran says, "The stance taken by 'certain European officials' about a nuclear war shows the E.U.'s' weaknesses regarding other states' rights to develop nuclear energy." ... All I can feel is the hair rising up on the back of my neck.

So what should be done about Iran?

The American left says "talk." Israel says "take out their capacity." France says they'll "nuke 'em." But the White House says, "U.N. sanctions?"

Maybe the more relevant question is, "What does Chirac know that Bush doesn't?"