The prevailing view among experts seems to be that there is a strong likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear installations. This may be the only point on which the opponents and proponents of that move agree. But the consensus is questionable.
True, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says that he won't wait for definitive proof that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at bomb building before deciding to strike, adding that the American and Israeli clocks are not in sync on this matter. But this rhetorical flourish amounts to an admission that Netanyahu couldn't get Obama's unconditional support during their recent meeting, despite his efforts to influence the President by campaigning for public and Congressional solidarity. Nor was the Prime Minister mollified by the President's statement that the United States will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and that military option is not "off the table."
But applying Netanyahu's standard would entail waging preventive war, which is altogether different from a preemptive one. The Israeli government would be claiming the right to attack based not an evident and compelling threat from Iran but on its assessment that Iran might acquire the wherewithal to harm Israel at some undefined juncture. That's an extremely permissive justification, one that few countries, even those well disposed toward Israel, will endorse, not least because Israel itself has nuclear weapons and thus a deterrent. While it's hard to imagine a U.S. president reproaching Israel, Netanyahu shouldn't bet that Obama would order American forces to join in. As for the reaction elsewhere, it will range from tepid support (at best) to condemnation, with the latter being the predominant one.
The Arab Spring has increased Israel's isolation in its neighborhood, and bombing Iran will make matters far worse. It's said that several Sunni Arab states fear the prospect of an Iran wielding nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms are most often mentioned, but so is Egypt. But no matter what the leaders of these countries might think, or communicate subtly to Washington or Tel Aviv, none will stand up and approve an Israeli attack for fear of a backlash from "the street," particularly after the mass protests of the Arab Spring. Nor will Israel find support elsewhere in the Muslim world. Take Turkey, for instance. Ankara believes that a nuclear-armed Iran would make the Middle East an even more dangerous place. The Turks nevertheless insist that the evidence on Tehran's intentions remains inconclusive; that Iran is, in any event, not close to manufacturing a bomb; and that diplomacy, not sanctions, let alone force, is the best solution.
Then there's Israeli public opinion. If you've assumed that Netanyahu's bellicosity has deep support among Israelis, you are not alone. Yet the reality is different. A recent poll shows that only 19 percent of Israelis support an attack without American support and that only 43 percent favor proceeding without it. Only 28 percent expect America to join an Israel strike, 39 percent anticipate only political support, while a third believes that Washington would stay neutral or even punish Israel. The vast majority does not think that an attack would delay an Iranian nuclear weapons program for more than five years, and a third opines that it will either accelerate it or make no difference. Similarly, prominent Israelis (including two former heads of the Mossad, Ephraim Halevy and Meir Dagan, and a former Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak) have declared that an attack on Iran is unnecessary to safeguard Israel and would indeed be counterproductive. Now, Netanyahu could ignore polls and pundits, but, like all politicians in democracies, he cares for votes and cannot dismiss the electoral consequences of a decision, the ripple effects of which leave Israelis more vulnerable.
The operational obstacles that Israel will confront in executing a successful attack -- whatever that means -- have received much attention: the distance Israeli jets will have to fly (1,861 miles to and fro); the need to refuel them en route, using aerial tankers; the size of the strike force that will be needed to overcome Iran's substantial air defense network; and Iran's dispersal of its nuclear facilities, some of which are deep underground and reinforced so as to protect them against even America's most powerful bunker-busting bomb, the 30,000 lb. GBU-57 A/B "Massive Ordnance Penetrator," which Israel lacks.
While these are important, the bigger problem is strategic rather than operational. An Israeli strike would likely guarantee that Iran makes a determined and explicit bid to build nuclear weapons because its leaders will conclude that Israel would never have struck if Iran had them. That assessment will have wide support in Iran, even among those who dislike the current regime. It would be strategically obtuse to attack Iran knowing this, and there's no reason to assume that Netanyahu doesn't know it.
Moreover, Israel leaders have been sending continual warnings intended to sway Iran's leaders (insisting, nevertheless, that they are irrational and hence immune to nuclear deterrence) -- an odd thing to do if Netanyahu is counting on maximizing surprise and effectiveness.
An Israeli attack on Iran will have consequences that are multiple, prolonged, and pernicious. But it's hardly a foregone conclusion that it will occur; indeed, it's less likely than generally assumed.
I hope you are right on..Lets have peace in the ME!
What if Iran decides Israel is too irresponsible (as it is constantly threatening to attack Iran) to have nukes and decides to curtail Israeli abilities to enjoy not only it's hundreds of weapons but it's civilian nuclear program as well?
What a classic Israel farce...it's almost as good as it it deserves to run an Apartheid because the Palestinians owe it do them
It's astounding when supporters of Israel bring up Iran and the NPT. Do you know that Israel isn't even a signer of, and participant in, the NPT? Israel has no ground to stand on in criticizing Iran re: the NPT.
Iran is complying with most of the NPT. There are disputes about whether or not they are fully complying. These disputes are being adjudicated; they've been engaged in ongoing dialogue about arranging the additional inspections.
Isn't violating 6 UNSC resolutions illegal? Maybe. Ask a lawyer. But Israel violates far more UN resolutions than any nation in the world.
The hypocrisy and lack of knowledge is just amazing.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/brian-williams-suggests-that-israeli-attack-on-iran-will-invite-terrorism-to-london-olympics.html
In Israel, there is a saying that goes "hold me back so I won't hit him". Which really means, "I want to look like I want to hit him so as to intimidate, but I really don't want to hit him."
I think that is what is going on here.
And, presumably, Israel would prefer at least the USA's assistance in de-fanging Iran.
Israel's statements are surely saying to the west, esp. the USA:
"We've held back for a almost a decade, because you said sanctions and diplomacy would end Iran's nuclear program. But it hasn't worked, they won't stop voluntarily, and be adviced that we will attack Iran's nuke factories if we have to".
It's establishing justification, not bluffing, imo.
The Israelis probably have something very clever and unexpected up their sleeves - as has been the case several times in the past.
Citation needed.
Where Israel is saying that they are not willing to wait, we have the Muslim Caliph, His Holiness, Mirza Masroor Ahmad, telling Israel not to go to war because it will lead to World War III. Here, we have the Muslims telling the Muslims AND Jews alike to please step back and consider all other options. You can see for yourself that the Israeli newscasters admit it is good advice, but hard to follow:
http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/03/religion/leader-of-ahmadiyya-muslim-community-warns-israel-against-attack-on-iran-starting-ww-iii
If you don't speak Hebrew (which sounds very interesting), don't worry, it also comes in subtitles in English.
If you are wondering who the Peace-loving Muslims are, feel free to check out the sermons of this caliph who believes peace is the only way to resolve our problems: www.mta.org
The nation most likely to have nuclear weapons against it is Israel.
Israel cannot be trusted about anything. They operate by a code of immorality and state terrorism where the ends justify the means, i.e., "never again."
Of course, if you live in fear of being elminated as a people, the DUMBEST thing you can do is gather a high percentage of your people in a tiny, tiny nation that exists in great, but not entire, part from having stolen land and resouces from others who coexist in the same geographic area.
Any American CEO who didn't similarly leverage his organization's resources as Iran can use it oil for revenue internationally while providing the replacement domestic energy from a cheaper source would be vilified and fired.
Equal odds and in a fair fight I`d put the IDF up agiasnt any force in the world, but they simply can`t occuply Iran or eliminate it`s ability to send a steady tide of counter attacks.
A regional war with Iran, even if Israel `wins`by destroying the Iranian army (good luck with that btw) would be the end of both coutnries as they know themselves.
May be you should stand up from your comfortable sofa and travel to Israel for couple of weeks. ;-)
Where you can see first hand both sides and get better understanding of Israel reality. That you so confidently talk about.
You are being modest, right word is scam called 'ambiguity'
But have a nice weekend just the same.
End the neocon nexus between the Israeli and American right wings. Right wingers are no good, neither here nor in Israel.