SitRep:
The World Trade Center and the Pentagon are both attacked, with high casualties and massive damage, both to real-estate and to commerce the world over. Another attack is averted, with high civilian casualties, but believed to have been directed at Capitol Hill.

One year later, all major, accepted intelligence sources state the following regarding a certain nation of the Middle East, which has been restricted under United Nations sanctions for the past 12 years:

• the referenced nation is overtly opposed to Western ideologies, to the point of attacking any and all things Western, with an affinity to destroy any and all things American
• the referenced nation is continually firing upon United States Military personnel who are operating within the sanctions of the United Nations
• the referenced nation is overtly supporting suicide bombings in Israel
• the referenced nation is covertly seeking expansion -- again
• the referenced nation is covertly seeking WMD materials
• the referenced nation is covertly testing WMD, and doing so on their own people
• the referenced nation is covertly conspiring with global terror elements (i.e., Abu Nidal Organization, al Qai’da, Armed Islamic Group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, et al)

And when confronted with the above allegations, the referenced nation overtly threatens WMD attacks upon United States Military personnel in the region, WMD attacks upon the nation of Israel, and WMD attacks upon the nation of Turkey.

Now, just for a moment, let’s try to forget that most of the above information might -- I say again might -- be erroneous. We still do not know today, and at the time of the above scenario, we must recall that U.S. Intel and U.S. Intel sources were considered to have been validated and be rock-solid. I know it’s tough, but let’s just give it a shot. It’s simply a matter of living in the real world.

Okay, if we can get past that last paragraph, and as the current president of the United States of America, it is now up to you, and you alone, to choose a response. What will that be?

• Do you negotiate with this self-proclaimed terror regime (remember that standing U.S. Policy states this to not be an option)?
• Do you toe the line, demanding that, during this period of global threat, the referenced nation bow to all accepted United Nation’s (AKA ROW’s) rules and regulations, and to do so within a specified window of compliance?

Well, since we do not negotiate with terrorists (as Reagan did not, as Bush did not, as Clinton did not, and as you know you must not), we move ahead. And when these “talks” boil down to louder, shouted threats across United Nations telephone lines from the referenced nation to the waiting ears of the United States and ROW, and time relentlessly ticks down to zero-hour--what do we do?

Back down?

Follow through?

Rewriting the scenario (or changing reality) is not an option.

Dan