Unlikely that Israel would attack Iran

Four reasons why Israel probably won’t attack Iran Telegraph, By David Blair World August 23rd, 2012 “…..1. War with Iran would be bad for Israel. The Iranian people would probably respond to outside attack by rallying behind their leaders and strengthening a deeply unpopular regime. Iran would hit back through Hizbollah in Lebanon and by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz, with serious civilian casualties in Israel and incalculable consequences for the global economy. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad would have the opportunity to pose alongside Iran as a dual victim of a Zionist plot against the Muslim world. It might be just the boost that Assad needs. And the best the Israeli air force could achieve would be to delay – not derail – Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Israel’s pilots would impose nothing more than a relatively short interval before Iran achieves nuclear weapons capability anyway. In fact, a war could have the opposite effect to the one desired. Iran’s leaders want the ability to build a Bomb, but they have not yet decided whether to actually go ahead and become a nuclear-armed state. If Israel attacks, they would be compelled to take a decision – and we can all guess what it would be.

2. Israel’s military and security leadership understands all of the above. Sundry ex-Mossad chiefs have publicly argued that hitting Iran would be a bad idea. General Benny Gantz, the current chief of staff and Israel’s most senior soldier, has given a sober and measured assessment of Iran’s intentions . He thinks that Iranian leaders are “very rational people” who, in the final analysis, will not go ahead and build a Bomb – assuming they aren’t attacked, of course. Israel’s decision-makers cannot ignore these arguments, even supposing their air force has the ability to inflict more than temporary damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which seems unlikely.

3. The outlines of a deal between Iran and America are emerging. I don’t mean a formal agreement, still less a “Nixon goes to China” diplomatic breakthrough. I’m not suggesting that the Obama administration is about to announce that secret diplomacy with Iran has solved the problem. I mean that both sides might quietly decide they can live with the status quo. In other words, Iran comes close to the ability to build a nuclear weapon, but its leaders refrain from going the final mile and actually manufacturing a Bomb. America, for its part, lives with an Iran on the threshold of nuclear capability, provided that Tehran holds back and opts not to become a nuclear-armed state. Iran and America might feel their way towards an implicit arrangement along these lines.

4. That could be the least worst option for the West. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, is 73 and sick. No-one knows what’s wrong with him (pancreatic cancer, say some, prostrate cancer, say others). It doesn’t matter: the point is that he could disappear from the scene at any moment. Meanwhile, President Ahamdinejad is a lame duck who will go at the end of his term in June. So it’s perfectly possible that Iran will have a new leadership in a year or two – and that could create an opening. Until then, preserving the status quo is the least unappealing option…. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/100177697/four-reasons-why-israel-probably-wont-attack-iran/