RE: It basically says that they are concerned that Iran might be pursuing nukes, but there is NO smoking gun evidence that they do.
Let’s say that there is no smoking gun evidence, what should a responsible President do?
A) Leave them alone and assume that they are not enriching weapons grade uranium. In other words, give the Ayatollah’s the benefit of the doubt and BELIEVE whatever they say...
B) Prepare and Monitor IN CASE the smoking gun appears.
C) Wait until the evidence is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that they have nuclear weapons before taking action.
As for Ahamdinejad threatening Israel, c’mon, you know that he has done that PUBLICLY on many occasions.
Here is just a sample result from google (Over ONE MILLION RESULTS):
I think that this is very different question (and a valid one) from the one that was framed at the debate -- and very different from Bachmann's falsely contextualized one.
Does Iran love Israel? Of course not. If Iran could wipe out Israel and get away with it, would she? Of course. But that's a mighty big "if".
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Iran's leadership are like a bunch of crazy dogs -- and you don't corner and taunt & abuse crazy dogs unless you want to get bit. You either back off, or you take them out. And if you take them out, what are the costs of that -- real and immediate, and in terms of blowback? You analyze the situation, you don't aggravate it the way we have been deliberately aggravating it.
Any presidential -- and Congressional consideration -- of what to do about Iran in such a case requires a thorough assessment of the neighborhood. Iran is not standalone -- it has relationships. What would China or Russia do if we took out Iran? What would happen in Iraq? Heck, what what would happen here in the US in terms of local terror with the half million Iranians living here in the US? This "let's take out Iran" fervor is IMHO dangerous and naive. This isn't a video game where we just get to shoot them in a barrel.
So to ultimately answer your question, if I were president I'd want as much real intelligence on the situation as possible -- and I'd want to hear from Israel as to what they think - -Israel as a friend, not as our lapdog using them to justify whatever we want to do. I'd try different options, because as Paul pointed out -- we have 12,000 people in the State Department -- what good are they if we immediately go to force instead of making them do their job?
I'm not weak-kneed on this and I don't think that Ron Paul is. Hell, my old big boss was Al Haig -- a brilliant negotiator at a time when that was actually respected -- but as Supreme Commander of NATO, certainly no opponent to using force when absolutely necessary.
A good and responsible president would be circumspect, make his decision, recommendations and get Congress and the whole country behind him to do what we needed to do -- before, and not after the fact. If this is going to be a war with Iran, then it must be our war, not just some dictator in the White House's war that we get the bill for in blood, treasure and loss of our rights.