The most obvious is that Catholicism has barely begun to digest the teaching of Vatican II on the nature of the Church, the universal call to holiness, and the reform of the episcopate, the priesthood, consecrated life, and the lay vocation in the world. Until the dramatic change in Catholic self-understanding that Vatican II mandated is fully internalized and implemented—until the Church understands itself as a mission, not as an institution that has a mission (as one among many things it does)—there seems little sense in convening Vatican III.

One might also argue that another ecumenical council would be a distraction from the evangelical mission to which Vatican II called the Church, and especially the Church’s bishops. As it is, bishops spend far too much of their time in meetings. Would the preaching of the Gospel, which, according to Vatican II, is the first responsibility of bishops, be advanced by gathering the entire world episcopate into a global mega-meeting for three or four months of the year, over a period of years?

Then there’s the question of resources. Any Vatican III would cost vast sums of money: would such an expenditure be the best use of the Church’s resources? (As Father John O’Malley reports in “What Happened at Vatican II?,” one of the reasons Pope Paul VI was determined to conclude Vatican II in December 1965 was that the Council was simply costing too much.)

These are all good reasons why a general council would be a bad idea for the foreseeable future. But there’s another issue here, one that raises an intriguing question about any future council, no matter when it’s convened: Where could Vatican III (or Lateran VI, or Trent II, or Lyons III, or whatever-the-future-council-is called) possibly be held?

Vatican I (1869-70) met in one transept of St. Peter’s, because there were only 737 bishops attending. Some 2,800 bishops participated in the four sessions of Vatican II, which met in the fall months of 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965, although at any one session there were between 2,000 and 2,500 bishops present—and they filled the entire, vast nave of St. Peter’s, seated on bleachers built high above the basilica’s marble floor. Add the ecumenical observers, the Council periti (advisers), and other functionaries with access to the Council aula (as the reconfigured basilica was called), and St. Peter’s was packed full.

But today? At the end of 2009, the last year for which complete Church statistics are available, there were 5,065 Catholic bishops in the world. A general or “ecumenical” council is, by definition, one in which all bishops have the right to participate (Canon 339). Where would this throng of over 5,000 bishops, literally twice the size of the episcopate that attended the most jam-packed session of Vatican II, meet? It certainly couldn’t meet at St. Peter’s, or at any of the other Roman basilicas. Indeed, is there a Catholic church in the world that could readily accommodate more than 5,000 bishops, their advisors, the ecumenical observers, and all the others who would rightly claim at least some place in a council hall?

One wag to whom I mentioned this conundrum spoke of a future council as “Metroplex I,” with the Council Fathers, the observers, the advisers, the translators, and all the rest of the apparatus meeting in Cowboys Stadium, graciously donated for the occasion by Jerry Jones. Bad jokes aside, however, the fact that the world episcopate has doubled in number over the past 50 years raises important questions for the future. How can this large a body function as the episcopal “college” of Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church? Is it possible to imagine a “virtual council,” or some other technological mechanism that would allow the world episcopate to meet as a whole?

There’s far more, literally, to any future council than typically meets the eye.

America’s Catholic bishops are princes of diplomacy, highly educated, erudite, men of tact, propriety. They’re asked to shepherd the flock with a long historical timeframe—like, say, eternity. They tend not to have knee-jerk reactions to issues of the moment.

And so, it’s not often when a paragon of decorum, namely, Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, publishes a letter in his diocesan newspaper with a title like, “To hell with you.”

Gee, what could have provoked that? The answer is the Obama administration via its horrendous mandate to Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients—that is, birth-control drugs that induce abortion. The Catholic Church defines these things as “evil.” The Church and its members are now being told they must provide them. By fiat, the Obama administration has issued that decree.

It sort of flies in the face of that old freedom of religion thing we’ve always had in America. And it’s certainly of concern not merely to Catholics but all Americans.

Here’s what happened:

Last August, the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidelines for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as, “Obama-care.” The guidelines mandated that by summer 2012 all health-insurance plans—yes, all of them—must cover any and all FDA-approved contraception, sterilization procedures, and pharmaceuticals, even those that produce or result in abortion. Every employer and employee must pay for these things, even if they violate the dictates of their conscience. The employers include all Catholic institutions, from colleges to hospitals to nursing homes to social-service agencies to charities … to whatever else. “All” means “all.”

How’s that for social justice?

Speaking of social justice, didn’t Notre Dame University give an honorary degree to President Obama?

Maybe it’s time for Notre Dame to revoke that degree. Does Notre Dame—and especially its trustees—have the moral courage to do that?

For Catholic Exchange.com and Ave Maria radio, I’m Paul Kengor.

As you know by now, Obama Administration has refused to grant religious organizations an exemption from purchasing health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, surgical sterilization, and contraception.

The Catholic bishops responded quickly, decrying the Administration’s decision for what it is—an egregious, dangerous violation of religious liberty.

And folks, we evangelicals must stand with them. While all of us may not share the Catholic view of contraception, all true Christians believe that the taking of human life in utero, whether surgically or by abortifacient drugs, violates the basic human right to life.

Many bishops have already declared that they will not obey this unjust law. The penalty for such a move would be severe. Catholic hospitals, universities, and other organizations would be force to pay punitive fines ($2,000 per employee) for refusing to purchase insurance that violates the teaching of their church.

But Catholic institutions aren’t the only ones affected by this mandate. Prison Fellowship, for example, which employs 180 people, could not morally purchase insurance for its employees that covers abortifacients. Nor could we afford the fines we would incur.

For some faith-based institutions, it would spell the end of their existence—and their far-reaching service to the public and to the needy. As Mike Gerson pointed out in his excellent Washington Post op-ed on Tuesday, it’s crazy that the government would drive charities like the Salvation Army and other Christian groups out of business. The government simply can’t afford to replace the services they provide–such as “homeless shelters, food banks, health care, welfare-to-work, prisoner re-entry programs” and much more.

Here is what I want you to do right now.

First, go to Manhattan Declaration.org and sign the petition to President Obama prepared by the Becket Fund, protesting this violation of our civil liberties.

Second, if you haven’t done so, sign the Manhattan Declaration. Join with 500,000 people who have committed to “fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

Third, pray that God would soften the hearts of the president and others in his administration that they would reverse course.

Fourth, be vigilant. The Administration may reverse itself here, but we are seeing an extremely dangerous pattern. The issue of religious liberty is not going to go away. Our freedoms are at stake.

For more on this grave threat to religious freedom, please go to ColsonCenter.org and watch my “Two-Minute Warning.”

Got that? Go to ManhattanDeclaraiton.org and sign the petition to the President and the Declaration itself. Then watch my “Two-Minute Warning” at ColsonCenter.org, and above all, my friends, be vigilant, and pray.

“We don’t believe they’ve actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon.”

Before the hearing, as James Fallows of The Atlantic reports, Clapper released his “Worldwide Threat Assessment.” It read, “We do not know … if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

Clapper thus reaffirmed the assessment of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reportedly repeated in 2011, that the U.S. does not believe that Iran has decided to become a nuclear weapons state.

In December, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that if Iran went all out, it might be able to build a nuclear weapon in a year, Pentagon spokesman George Little hastily clarified his comments:

“The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon.”

On Jan. 8, Panetta himself told CBS:

“(Is Iran) trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us. And our redline to Iran is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon.”

On Super Bowl Sunday, President Barack Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer that he hopes to solve the Iranian problem “diplomatically.”

From the above, we may conclude that the administration does not believe that Iran has crossed any redline on the nuclear issue — and President Obama does not want war with Iran.

Who, then, does want war? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

From their actions, it would appear not. If Iran wanted war with the United States, any terror attack inside this country or on U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan could bring that about in an afternoon.

Expulsion of the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from the Natanz enrichment facility, covering up the IAEA cameras, breaking the seals on the low-enriched uranium stockpiled there, or removing the LEU would be a fire bell for the Pentagon.

But the IAEA inspectors and LEU are still there.

When the alleged plot by a used-car salesman in Texas to hire Mexican cartel criminals to blow up a D.C. restaurant and kill the Saudi ambassador was revealed, Iran denied it emphatically and demanded to interview the alleged mastermind.

Moreover, Tehran has yet to retaliate for the assassinations of five of its nuclear scientists and four terror attacks by Jundallah in Sistan-Baluchistan and PJAK, a Kurdish terrorist organization operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran has alleged Western and Israeli involvement in these attacks.

Now that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has denied any U.S. involvement, Mossad is the prime suspect behind the killing of the nuclear scientists. And U.S. writer Mark Perry, in Foreign Policy, alleges that Mossad agents posed as CIA and used U.S. dollars in London to recruit Jundallah.

If this is true, this would be a false flag operation to provoke Iran into lashing out at America. Apparently, Iran did not take the bait.

Why have the Iranians not followed through on their threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and begun to dial it back?

War with the United States would be a disaster. Though the Tehran regime might survive — as Saddam Hussein’s survived Desert Storm — Iran’s navy, most of its armor, anti-aircraft and anti-ship defenses, and its strategic missile force would be destroyed, as would much of the country’s infrastructure. Iran would be set back years.

Who, then, wants war with Iran?

All those who would like to see exactly that happen to Iran.

And who are they? The Netanyahu government and its echo chamber in U.S. politics and media, the neoconservatives, members of Congress, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

And as the Obama administration is the major force in U.S. politics opposed to war with Iran, its defeat in November would increase, to near certitude, the probability of a U.S. war with Iran in 2013.

Yet if the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community are correct — Iran does not have a bomb and has not decided to build a bomb — why should we go to war with Iran?

Answer: Iran represents “an existential threat” to Israel.

But Israel has 200 atomic bombs and three ways to deliver them, while Iran has never built, tested or weaponized a nuclear device. Who is the existential threat to whom here?

And though a U.S. war on Iran would be calamitous for Iran, it would be no cakewalk for Americans, who could become terrorist targets for years in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Baghdad’s Green Zone, Lebanon and even here in the USA.

Year 2012 is thus shaping up as a war-or-peace election, with Republicans the war party and Democrats the peace-and-diplomacy party.

And as the months pass between now and November, this will become clear to the nation.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

Lego, which markets plastic building blocks for everything from “Star Wars” fighting vehicles to Egyptian pyramids, has now introduced a line aimed at young girls. The new toys include Butterfly Beauty Shop, Stephanie’s Outdoor Bakery, and Olivia’s House, all featuring recognizable girl figures with long hair and feminine outlines, unlike the squat, sexless figures that characterize many of the company’s other building sets. More importantly, these toys depict girls engaging in traditionally female activities and roles: getting their hair done, baking, caring for children.

The company says that it has introduced the new line because of customer demand. Little girls (or their mothers) apparently aren’t lining up to buy Lego’s Fangpyre Wrecking Balls or Pirates of the Caribbean. But feminist critics say that the real motive is to reinforce gender stereotypes and limit little girls’ aspirations.

In fact, it’s the feminists who want to limit women’s choices. Their message to girls and young women is: If you’re not exactly like men, you don’t believe in equal rights.

For much of the last 40 years, feminists have pushed to masculinize women. They have insisted that girls should want to become engineers, firefighters or athletes; that they should be as eager to engage in combat as men; that their careers should define them.

At the same time, feminists have taken on the task of feminizing males. Boys should not be afraid of playing with dolls; they should learn to play nice; they should cooperate rather than compete with others. Men should share child-rearing, cooking, cleaning. They should be sensitive, learn to share their feelings, and value their emotional side as much as their rational one.

The feminist influence on Hollywood has replaced as an icon of female beauty the voluptuous and feminine Marilyn Monroe with the gaunt, well-muscled Hilary Swank, while jettisoning the ruggedly male Clint Eastwood for the softly feminine Jake Gyllenhaal. Feminists have ensured that textbooks depict women as astronauts and fighter pilots and rewrite history to glorify the role of even minor female figures at the expense of eliminating major accomplishments by males.

But despite the feminist movement’s almost complete success in refashioning the terms of the cultural debate, feminists have not been able to convince most little girls to want to play with starfighters and missile launchers.

Having been a mother to three boys, a grandmother to six more, and a grandmother to three girls, I know that sex differences in personality, likes and dislikes are usually present from birth. While boys’ and girls’ preferences range along a broad spectrum, rare is the little boy who doesn’t like to build things and then smash them up, and rare is the little girl who is as interested in doing so — especially the smashing-up part.

So why shouldn’t a company that hopes to increase its market share take advantage of those differences? What’s wrong with creating toys that’ll have an appeal to customers who want to bake cupcakes and have their hair and nails done?

As long as we don’t tell girls they should never choose the action figure over the princess or tell boys that they must play with guns and not dolls, we’re not cutting off options for either gender. Real choice entails letting individuals — even young ones — gravitate toward what they want, not what ideologues wish them to prefer.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

VAWA was originally passed by Congress in 1994, with Bill Clinton pushing the law as a payoff to the feminists for supporting his election as president. Joe Biden claims credit as a major sponsor and likes to say it is the legislation he is most proud of.

In its 17 years of operation, it has done little or no good for real victims of domestic violence, while its funds have been used to fill feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives and laws. Although every spending bill should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud, VAWA has somehow ducked accountability for the nearly billion dollars a year it doles out to radical feminist organizations.

Despite rigid feminist dogma that there are no gender differences, VAWA is totally grounded in feminist-created gender stereotypes. Starting with its title, Violence Against Women, its fundamental assumption is that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims.

In other words, men are always guilty, and women must always be believed without fear of being punished for perjury. VAWA assumes there is no violence against men, and it doesn’t provide services for men who are victims of domestic violence.

The feminists have so broadened the definition of domestic violence that it doesn’t have to be violent and can usually be whatever a woman alleges. Definitions of domestic violence include vague and overbroad concepts such as emotional distress, harassment, annoyance or merely unpleasant speech.

Feminist recipients of VAWAs handouts use the money to train legislators, judges and prosecutors in feminist ideology and goals. This has resulted in dozens of state laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone, so guess who) and no-drop prosecution (i.e., the man must be prosecuted even in the large percentage of cases where the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).

Instead of promoting divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men, VAWA should be revised to encourage counseling when appropriate and voluntary. Some VAWA money should be used for programs to help couples terminate use of illegal drugs and reduce the use of alcohol.

Any man who is accused of domestic violence effectively loses a long list of constitutional rights accorded to ordinary criminals. These include due process, presumption that he is innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment under the law, right to a fair trial, right to confront his accusers, freedom of speech, right to privacy in family matters, custody or visitation with his own children, and even the right to bear arms.

The woman is provided with legal representation even though she has not presented any evidence of injury or harm. The man gets no such help.

About a fourth of divorces involve an allegation of domestic violence, which in many cases is false or without any evidence. Those allegations usually result in the issuance of restraining orders that the Illinois Bar Association has referred to as “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

It’s no surprise that VAWA is often referred to as the hate-men law. The attitude of many judges and prosecutors who have been trained by the feminists with VAWA funds was expressed by one New Jersey judge whose extravagant statement was even reported in the New Jersey Law Journal: “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’”

Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even though no evidence of abuse is presented. This usually results in the complete severing of the child’s relationship with his or her father.

VAWA should be completely revised to provide meaningful definitions of domestic violence that are specific enough to identify real victims, to stop the over-criminalization of minor partner discord, to emphasize counseling rather than incarceration, to assure that training programs for prosecutors and judges are objective, to assure accountability by tracking the large flow of taxpayers’ money, to respect fathers’ rights, to inspect shelters, to evaluate success and fairness, and to develop programs to address the common problem of mutual partner abuse.

If VAWA is not reformed to respect constitutional rights, it will turn out to be a major embarrassment to all members of Congress who vote for it.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

It’s hard to say who’s the worst mayor in America, though I can certainly name one of the most disappointing: It’s New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

This isn’t the place to list every objection I might have to Mayor Bloomberg’s policies, but most notable is his unwavering stance in favor of abortion. Making it worse is that Bloomberg is a high-profile member of the Republican Party, which has become the pro-life party in America. Bloomberg flies in the face of that trend. He’s a throwback to the days of the liberal/Northeastern, so-called “Rockefeller Republican.” He’s a progressive Republican.

Bloomberg’s latest outrageous overture to the pro-abortion cause came when he stoically stepped forward to send a big, fact personal check to Planned Parenthood. Republican governors and legislatures nationwide have been reducing or ending taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood. This has been a truly blessed development that has placed Margaret Sanger’s organization on the ropes. Apparently, there’s only so-much direct revenue available from killing unborn babies. To stay alive, poor Planned Parenthood needs those desperate taxpayer subsidies that Democrats have faithfully provided. There’s only so much blood money.

Apparently chagrined by Planned Parenthood’s hard-times, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has generously written a personal check for $250,000 to the nation’s largest abortion provider, which, as everyone knows, kills a far higher percentage of unborn black children than unborn white children. Those children are what racial-eugenicist Margaret Sanger referred to as “human weeds.”

Naturally, you won’t read that in the New York Times. Quite the contrary, the Times was elated with what it termed Bloomberg’s “generosity.” The Times’ headline rejoiced: “With Fine Timing, Bloomberg Makes a Financial Pledge That Excites and Engages.” The mayor’s pledge, celebrated the Times, was rejuvenating; it was Bloomberg’s “biggest political coup in years.” The gesture may have even got the mayor re-elected.

The Times was beside itself with joy. Planned Parenthood—propped up by the good mayor.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York Republican. He’s doing his part to help keep America’s premier abortion business in business.

For Catholic Exchange dot com and Ave Maria Radio, I’m Paul Kengor.

No doubt you’ve been watching the unfolding drama of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood — and then its stunning reversal.

What you saw last week was a concerted, intentional effort by an ideological minority — the radical pro-abortion forces — not just to make their case in public, but to destroy the opposition. Using incendiary language, accusing Komen of endangering the lives of women, they made no pretense to pursue civil discourse.

And it’s a tragedy that Komen for the Cure caved. Because all of the rational arguments were on their side.

First of all, Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms, its doctors simply provide breast cancer referrals. No wonder Komen for the Cure figured its money could be better spent on organizations that provide direct treatment.

And of course there’s the uncomfortable link between breast cancer and abortion. A 2009 study by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center showed “a statistically significant 40% increased risk [of breast cancer] for women who have abortions.”

Second, Komen’s stated policy was not to contribute to organizations under investigation. Well, Planned Parenthood is under Congressional investigation for potentially misusing federal funds — funds that by law may not be used for abortions. In 2010, the organization received fully 46 percent of its funding — 487 million dollars — from government grants.

Yet according to Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report, the organization and its many affiliates performed more than 329,000 abortions in 2010 — or a full 91 percent of services rendered to pregnant women.

It sure sounds to me that they’re flouting the law.

Finally, this never was about the money. Komen’s grant was a drop in Planned Parenthood’s bucket. As Tim Stanley of the UK Telegraph pointed out, Komen for the Cure’s annual grant made up a mere .058 percent of Planned Parenthood’s budget!

So what is this all about? Look friends, Komen is the kind of respectable and mainstream partner that Planned Parenthood desperately needs to continue its charade that it is all about “women’s health.” And it and its friends will bully and shout down anybody who dares to disagree with them.

What happened to Komen is a perfect example of the despotism of the modern left. Disagree with them, they vilify you and seek to intimidate you into silence. Tragically, Komen caved.

As I’ve been saying on BreakPoint for the last three or four months, we must break the spiral of silence. That’s why it is so important to speak out, even now. Let Komen know that you appreciated what they did to de-fund Planned Parenthood — come to BreakPoint.org and we’ll link you to their website — and that you are horrified that they didn’t have the courage to stick to their convictions.

Here is the lesson for us in all of this: We must have the courage of our convictions. Remember, courage is the first of the cardinal virtues, the virtue on which all others depend. We must never cave when it comes to defending the Truth, no matter what comes our way.

Just remember, we have no choice but to stand for what is true and just and to oppose evil no matter what the cost.

My six-year-old daughter, Abigail, is the quiet one, shy, sensitive, sweet.

It was the Saturday morning of the baptism of our adopted son. Abby came to me holding a sign her sister had made for the March for Life in Washington two years ago. It had been tucked away in the garage. It was a cute, clever sign. In capital letters it read, “ABORTION,” but with the “B” and “R” crossed out and a “D” and a “P” scribbled above them. The converted slogan thus read, “ADOPTION” instead of “ABORTION.”

“Daddy, I think we should put out this sign today,” Abby told me, as it was our adopted son’s baptism day. His mother had chosen adoption instead of abortion.

What had inspired little Abby to grab that sign? This was surely God’s grace in our house.

As are those letters, “D” and “P.” They, too, have special meaning in our household. In our home, they stand for “Divine Plan,” the “DP.”

That unusual acronym has unique meaning in our home because of a man named Bill Clark, a devout Catholic, 80 years old, who lives in California. Clark was the closest adviser to President Ronald Reagan. More than any other figure, Clark helped Reagan peacefully take down the Soviet empire. I’m Clark’s biographer. My family knows him well, like a grandfather. We spent summers at his ranch.

Clark often told us about how he and Reagan referred to the “DP”—the “Divine Plan.” As we sat around Clark’s ranch discussing yet another remarkable thing that transpired between Clark and Reagan and the world—sometimes with John Paul II’s involvement—I would say, “Bill, that’s amazing. How did that happen?”

Clark’s frequent answer: “The ‘DP,’ Paul. The ‘DP.’”

It had been the Divine Plan.

Well, the “DP” manifests itself in all sorts of ways, in the lives of Clark, Reagan, John Paul II, all of us. One manifestation in my family’s life has been the “DP” of adoption instead of abortion.

As we think about the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, have you considered whether adoption is in your “DP?”

For Catholic Exchange dot com and Ave Maria Radio, I’m Paul Kengor.

It’s a paraphrase: For delicate statements, top officials prefer indirection and written words. It offers wiggle room and reduces tensions. Asked whether he disputed the Post report, Panetta inscrutably stated: “No, I’m just not commenting. What I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else.” (Contrast this episode with Barack Obama talking about drones in front of the cameras, an indiscretion that won him trouble, including a lawsuit from the ACLU.)

It might be disinformation: In the mirror world of nuclear diplomacy, we on the outside have almost no way of discerning wheat from chaff. Panetta could be sending a signal to Tehran as opposed to telling the truth. The same applies to other news, be it assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists or sales of ordnance to Israel. Wait a decade to learn what’s really happening now.

Tehran is determined: Iran’s supreme guide, Ali Khamene’i, again confirmed that nothing and no one will impede his regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, announcing that “Sanctions will not have any impact on our determination to continue our nuclear course.” I believe him. Just as the North Korean regime allowed its subject population to starve in the pursuit of nukes, so will the Iranians pay whatever the price.

Israel is also determined: The Israeli leadership looks back to the Holocaust and feels the weight of its responsibility. Commenting on those top-ranking military personnel who disagree with him and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about the Iranian nuclear danger, Israel’s Minister of Defense Ehud Barak commented that “It’s good to have diversity in thinking and for people to voice their opinions. But at the end of the day, when the military command looks up, it sees us — the minister of defense and the prime minister. When we look up, we see nothing but the sky above us.”

U.S. presidential elections: Were the Israelis to attack Iran, Obama’s response could have major electoral implications. Were he to approve or (especially) join in the attack, he would scramble the elections to his advantage. Were he to condemn the Israelis, however, he would likely pay a price.