Israel's prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, has openly resisted the idea that negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program can ever have any success. He has a huge plurality in the Israeli Knesset and can act unilaterally, without their approval, to launch an attack on Iran. He is a firm believer that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, how they use it is totally unpredictable. That is a new dimension when compared to other countries with nuclear capability, who have all acted responsibly over many years. Most countries and politicians tend to agree with Netanyahu and say that Iran's program must be stopped before they are successful in achieving a nuclear weapon.

Recent polls show that the Israeli population is very mixed on the idea of unilaterally attacking Iran. About one-third is definitely supportive. One-third is strongly against the idea. One-third is undecided. Israelis are unanimous however in expecting U.S. support in any kind of war that might result from an unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran.

Last September, U.S. Air Force chief-of-staff Norton Schwartz told the Israeli Knesset that any such attack by Israel would not slow Iran's nuclear development by even as much as two years. To do more damage, Israel would need our latest version of "bunker buster" bombs, which the U.S. has refused to sell them. But even with their use, according to Schwartz, permanent damage to the Iranian nuclear development facilities is uncertain. Of course, Iran knows this and has been in the process of moving their nuclear operations deep underground for several years.

Bi-lateral negotiations with Iran are ongoing. Obviously, if we placed our willingness to provide Israel with our "bunker busters" on the table, the negotiations might take a different turn. But our intent can't be hollow. If we put the threat on the table, we need to be prepared to follow through and provide Israel with the weapons. And if Israel launched such an attack, the U.S. would almost certainly be drawn into whatever military actions might result.

So, if you were POTUS, how would you direct your Secretary of State to proceed with the negotiations with Iran? What would your policy be--draw a line in the sand and step up the seriousness of the negotiations? Or continue the discussions with Iran using only the relatively ineffectual economic sanctions by a few western countries as a threat? Any broader sanctions to Iran's program by the UN as an example, isn't possible because Russia and China consistently side with their ally in blocking any UN actions or sanctions that might be detrimental to Iran.

So what would you do? What should we do?