In the United States, if a person is faced with mortal danger, they can take deadly action in self-defense. Only as self-defense. This means that if a person takes a shot at you while screaming “I’m going to eliminate you” and then you can use reasonable force to stop him/her, including deadly force. I’m no lawyer, but that’s more or less how the law goes… unless the aggressor is Iran and the judge is Obama. Apparently, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States believes that it is prudent to give Iran an indefinite amount of time to develop nuclear weapons by asking, pleading, and begging for direct talks without preconditions. Worse still, the POTUS believes that despite Iran’s repeated calls for the annihilation of Israel, the Jewish state does not have the right to defend itself from an eventual nuclear-armed Iran. So, ladies and gentlemen, if a person adopts a policy that enables the development of nuclear weapons by a country that wants to destroy Israel and then tells Israel that it does not have a “green light” to stop said country from developing nuclear weapons, is that person helping defend Israel or enabling a nuclear attack on Israel? And as a second question, what would a nuclear attack on a nation of about 6 million Jewish people be called?

-AG