As allies, Israel and the United States should be so close together one could not slip a single sheet of paper between the two.

In the face of Iranian threats against Israel, that piece of paper should be reduced in thickness by a property of ten and still not fit between the nation of Israel and the United States.

Should we act on behalf of Israel? No. Israel is perfectly capable to act on their own and  they have never once asked us to defend them, act for them or take the lead in their issues.

None the less, we should be there, with them, side by side never flinching, never blinking.

As things now stand, this is not the case.

Last week, in reported comments, Leon Panetta made that abundantly clear.

According to the Washington Post, our Secretary of Defense is concerned that Israel will engage in a strike against Iran in April, May or June of this year.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack.

A troubling report to say the least.

In his reported comments, Panetta issues no viable concern over a possible nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran nor does he seem concerned over who Iran might strike if indeed they do acquire nuclear weapons.

His concern seems directed toward Iran.

Asked later whether he would dispute that comment, Panetta replied, “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.”

Liberals will claim that Panetta is “concerned” such a move by Israel will “destablize” the region; but, as Defense Secretary, Panetta should know the region is not stable now.

In the first place, Iran has been saying for YEARS that they want to wipe Israel from the map and for YEARS…DECADES…they have been at war with Iraq. In fact, for more than 30 years, Iran has been at war with US.

In the second place, the entire region is unstable and Obama has done nothing but encourage that instability. Egypt, once a partner in peace with Israel is now in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic fanatics. Libya is now in the hands of Al Qaeda and other unknown unfriendly forces. Syria is a mess. The Palestinian Authority is petitioning for formal statehood. Obama is trying to “Talk” to the Taliban and is in the process of releasing 5 Taliban terrorists from Gitmo in a show of “goodwill.”

To further the instability in the region, Obama pulled out of Iraq on a political rather than a ground-success timeline and he’s trying to do the same thing in Afghanistan.

Given all of this, Panetta is worried about Iran being the recipient of a strike?

The next reason this comment from Panetta is so troubling is that it puts a timetable on a possible action by our ally, Israel.

Whether or not it’s accurate, to announce the possible timeline of Israeli action is a slap in the face to Israel and can only help Iran.

Why on Earth, if we are supposed to be standing WITH Israel, would we be attempting in ANY way to assist Iran?

What SHOULD be happening, well behind the scenes and out of the public eye, is the United States asking Israel, “How can we be of assistance to YOU?”

We should be working closely and QUIETLY with Israel, providing whatever intel they might need, making clear our  ability to provide whatever weapons might be needed if Israel doesn’t have them and making it clear that the decision is Israel’s to make but they will have our support diplomatically and in action should either or both be sought.

An editorial published in the New York Times takes the same position as Panetta stating, “We hope for everyone’s sake that Israel’s leaders weigh all of the consequences before they act. A military attack would almost certainly make things worse. Tough sanctions and a united diplomatic front are the best chance for crippling Iran’s nuclear program.”

Ron Paul and his followers believe sanctions, tough or otherwise, are not the way to approach the situation but offering “friendship” to Iran is the way to go.  Ron Paul and his followers also believe that our best course of action would be to withdraw from ALL foreign aid of any kind and get off the world stage.

Where liberals and Ron Paul agree is their view that Iran has nothing and is not trying to build nuclear weapons nor do they have the means to deliver such weapons even if they had them. They also agree that the world’s problems are caused by our being involved in so many places and conflicts.

Ron Paul, his followers and liberals could not be more on the wrong side of history or reality.

If history teaches us anything regarding such situations, it is that appeasement doesn’t work and one need look no further than British PM Neville Chamberlain attempts at it leading up to WWII.

Ask the British of appeasement worked then.

Ask Israelis.

Right now, if you ask liberals or Ron Paul followers, countries that hate us do so because of our actions in various parts of the world.

To see just how wrong this line of thinking really is, look at the Ron Paul solution of withdrawing from the world stage.

Now, they claim, we are hated by our enemies because we are there.

If we withdraw and cease any and all support, as Paul would have us do, we will be despised by our friends for doing so.

The simple fact of the matter is, should we do as Paul suggests, our enemies will continue to hate us.

The world stage is no place to be involved in a game of high stakes poker if you’re bluffing and if Iran ignores that fact they are ignoring a very valuable lesson of recent history. The last leaders involved in that game who were playing the bluff, departed the table at the end of a swinging rope and in the frozen foods section of a grocery store respectively.

Put wiping Israel off the map on the table and you are upping the ante. Threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz and you have upped the ante. Tell the world you are enriching uranium in underground facilities and you’re all in.

Bluffing or not, you’re gonna get called.