Today Donald Trump was asked whether he had made the decision to attack Iran's nuclear sites or not. He answered with perhaps the truest words he has ever spoken: "You don't seriously think I'm going to answer that question. You don't know that I'm going to even do it. You know, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do." It's hard to disagree with that, really.

But the subject deserves more than just snark, since it is a serious decision Trump has to make -- and it would be an equally tough decision for any U.S. president to have to make. Entering the country into a war is always a serious decision, and it should be treated as such by all concerned.

The stakes are high. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. Whatever Trump decides, it will come with some degree of risk -- both for the country and for him politically.

The arguments for attacking

Let's start with the pro-attack side of the argument. There are basically two very strong points to make. The first is that Iran is historically weak right now. In fact, they may be at their weakest point ever (since their revolution). This was precisely the reason why Israel launched their war against Iran in the first place, and the result of their attacks has been to further weaken Iran.

Iran's regional proxies have either been destroyed or seriously weakened. This includes the former Syrian regime as well as proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The wars Israel was already fighting have weakened Hamas and Hezbollah to the point where they do not represent a major threat Iran could now use against Israel (or others in the region).

This was all true before Israel attacked Iran. But now the Israeli attacks have either destroyed or used up much of the Iranian war arsenal. Israel controls the skies over Iran. To do this, they have taken out all the Iraqi radar sites and air defense sites. If Trump decides to go ahead and attack, a bombing mission over Iraq would not come with much risk to the planes and pilots involved. That is a major change in the battlefield situation from a week ago.

Iran is running out of missiles and the ability to launch them. They have sent hundreds of missiles towards Israel, most of which have been shot down by the Israel's anti-missile systems. Israel has also destroyed many missile launchers, making it tougher for Iran to use whatever of its missile stocks still remain. Israel has also targeted missiles on the ground in Iraq and the infrastructure Iraq uses to build more of them.

All of this adds up to Iran being weaker militarily -- weaker than they have been in decades -- with a window of opportunity (Israel controlling the Iranian skies) that may not come again.

This brings us to the second strong argument for America attacking Iran. For decades, Iran has played a game of "maybe we will, maybe we won't" with their nuclear program. They have the ability to enrich uranium to the degree necessary to build nuclear bombs, but they have never actually taken the final steps to do so. Just producing enough bomb-grade uranium to build 10 or 20 bombs does not mean Iran will actually have 10 or 20 bombs any time soon. They've got to design the weapons, build them, and test them. All of that isn't that tough. Nuclear bombs can actually be very simple devices. Just slap together enough fissile material to make a critical mass, and it will start an uncontrolled chain reaction and blow up.

But that's not enough, really. Iran would have to not only build bombs but also have some way of delivering those bombs to their targets. And making a nuke that will fit on a missile is a lot harder than just making a crude atom bomb. The design of such a bomb would be radically different, and a whole lot more complex to construct. So again, just having enough fissile material to build 10 or 20 bombs doesn't equate to "Iran has nukes" within a short period of time. It would take awhile before they could produce a deliverable weapon that actually worked. How long that time would be is a big question, but it'd be at least on the order of many months -- not mere weeks or days.

Israel has handed America the opportunity to easily shut Iran's little "will we or won't we" game down for good. Or, to be more accurate, to send them back to Square One by destroying everything they have achieved on this path so far. This is an opportunity that has never existed before, and might not ever exist again (or at least not any time soon). Israel has wiped out all the above-ground nuclear facilities in Iran, leaving only one site that is buried deep beneath a mountain (for obvious reasons).

Israel cannot bomb this facility out of existence. Only America can do that, with incredibly large ground-penetrating bombs. These bombs are 20 feet long and weigh 30,000 pounds, which means that the only plane capable of carrying them is America's B-2 bomber. Israel does not have these bombs or these bombers -- only we do.

If we were to bomb the site, Iran would be left with no remaining centrifuges and other infrastructure to enrich uranium, and no stockpiles of enriched uranium. They could no longer threaten to build a bomb within a year because they simply would not have the means to do so. They could start all over again, and likely dig a new facility even deeper than the one they've got now, but it would take them years to get it up and running at the levels they have been up to now.

There are other military options that Israel could undertake, short of using "bunker-busting" bombs. They could bomb all the infrastructure supplying electricity to the site. They could bomb all the above-ground entrances to the tunnels that lead to the underground site. They could even launch a commando raid and try to fight their way into the facility and then blow it up from the inside. But it'd be a lot easier and a lot more permanent for America to just use the weapons it possesses and wipe the site out from long-range bombers. And we may never have this opportunity to easily do so ever again.

The arguments against attacking

There are also good arguments to be made against launching such an attack. The biggest of these is avoiding getting directly entangled in a regional war in the Middle East. Donald Trump's whole "America First" ideology has always been based on avoiding such "forever wars," and the question of whether to attack Iran is already splitting his supporters into two groups, one hawkish and one that denounces such an attack as a betrayal of what America First stands for.

Trump, of course, makes everything up as he goes along, so he could be expected to have some explanation of why America First now means bombing Iran, and his rank-and-file followers would probably wind up accepting it. But being dragged in to a Middle East war might come with some sort of political price for him in the end -- especially if Iran manages to retaliate in some unexpected way. Trump would doubtlessly try to sell it as a "one and done" attack, just lending the might of America's bombers and bombs to Israel so they can complete their one-time mission of completely wiping out Iran's nuclear capabilities. But if Iran does somehow draw America deeper into the conflict, this explanation isn't going to hold up.

Iran is weak, but they're not completely powerless yet. They could still attack American military sites in the region and they could take a very drastic step that would impact the world's oil markets -- they could shut down the Strait of Hormuz, where 20 percent of all the world's oil passes through in giant tankers. This would impact Iran as well, since a lot of their oil moves through that waterway, but they may decide to do so anyway out of sheer desperation.

The price of oil has already spiked in response to Israel's attack. The price Americans pay at the gas pumps is also heading sharply upwards -- it has risen by 10 cents in just the last few days. It could rise another 10 to 40 cents, depending on what the price of crude oil does, even without us attacking Iran. Trump might face some serious blowback from Americans who see the price at the pump spike upwards. So far in his term in office, the price of gas has mostly stayed flat. Since Trump was sworn in the average price Americans pay for a gallon of gas has gone from $3.09 down to just above $3.00, up to $3.26, and then back down to $3.09 again -- where it was just before the attacks began. Since then it has spiked upwards to $3.20 and could be poised to go even higher.

People are going to feel that. The price of gas is impossible to ignore. Trump can repeat his fantasy that gas prices are down to "$1.98" until he is blue in the face, but it doesn't make it a reality at any gas station in the entire country. People see what they see at the gas station, and if what they see is wildly different than what Trump is telling them then he's going to be seen as completely out of touch with reality -- even by his own supporters. Gas prices going up is always a political weakness for any president, period.

All of these price increases are happening before the U.S. gets directly involved in the war. What the price of oil would do afterwards is anyone's guess, but if Iran does take the drastic action of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz then gas is going to get a whole lot more expensive no matter what else happens.

One argument against attacking is a technical one -- Donald Trump simply does not have the constitutional power to launch such an attack. Iran is not some terrorist group -- they are a country. Military authorizations in place to go after terrorists would not apply. Iran has not directly attacked America or American troops, so the president couldn't legally order an attack on Iran for defensive purposes (or retaliation). It would take a declaration of war from Congress to authorize such an attack. Of course, the Constitution may prohibit such an attack, but Donald Trump isn't known for scrupulously following the Constitution to begin with. He would likely brush any complaints aside and claim to have the full legal power to attack anyone he feels like. What are Democrats going to do? Sue him? What is Congress going to do? Condemn him while we are at war? So at least for the short term, Trump would likely get away with launching such an attack, although there is the danger of him having to pay a political price for it later.

Right now, launching such an attack would be highly unpopular, if the polling is any indication:

Polling indicates a strike on Iran would be deeply unpopular with a public skeptical of U.S. military adventurism. Only 16% of American adults believe the United States should get involved in the military conflict between Israel and Iran, according to an Economist/YouGov poll released this week. A whopping 60% oppose American involvement, with 24% uncertain. Even among Republicans, just 23% want to get involved.

These numbers might shift somewhat if we do go ahead and attack, since there is almost always a "rally 'round the flag" response when America goes to war, but if things turn sour in any way then those numbers might shift right back again. Even paying an extra 40 or 50 cents per gallon at the gas pump might drive public opinion away from supporting such an attack.

The most convincing argument for not attacking Iran right now is that they are indeed at the weakest point they've ever been. So it might be possible to force them into agreeing to a much stronger nuclear deal than was even possible a week ago. "Sign it or we'll take your underground site out" might well be a convincing argument. Having their facilities destroyed is no longer a hypothetical argument -- Israel has already wiped most of them out. We have the ability to easily wipe out the one that remains. Iran could be pressured into permanently giving up their nuclear ambitions, instead of just dialing them back or limiting them. It might even now be possible to force Iran to stop sending missiles and other advanced weaponry to its proxies in the region (such as the Houthis in Yemen). Now might be the best opportunity that has ever existed to make a deal with Iran -- and a deal would mean permanently solving the problem, whereas bombing their underground site would just set them back to Square One without ending their nuclear ambitions (it would take years, but eventually Iran could be expected to rebuild their facilities and process more uranium, which would put us right back to where we were before Israel attacked).

Conclusion

As I said, there are cogent arguments to be made on both sides of this issue. Trump appears to be weighing his options. As he himself said, it's impossible to know what he'll wind up deciding to do. He might want to go down in history as the U.S. president who entirely wiped out Iran's nuclear program, or he might want to be the one who finally gets an iron-clad agreement for Iran never to achieve having a nuclear weapon. Either one would add to his legacy, as you can see.

For now, all the rest of us can do is wait. Whatever happens, it is likely to happen soon. The next few weeks (or even the next few days) will likely bring some sort of answer, as Trump either decides to go ahead and attack or back off. But until he does decide, all we can really do is wait.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant