Debate regarding the possibility of a US and/or Israeli war against Iran has people picking their sides fairly quickly. Obviously there is bound to be some shift in opinion over time, but Matthew Kroenig, for example, seems fairly set on his long-held position in favour of attack:
Skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease -- that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.Whereas a colleague of his would disagree, arguing that Kroenig "takes a page out of the decade-old playbook used by advocates of the Iraq war" and that the U.S. would be foolish to not seriously consider other options before diving headfirst into conflict. And then of course there's this must-read from the New York Times Magazine:
As we spoke, a man approached and, having recognized me as a journalist who reports on these issues, apologized before asking: “When is the war going to break out? When will the Iranians bomb us?” The Mossad official smiled as I tried to reassure the man that we wouldn’t be nuked tomorrow. Similar scenes occur almost every day — Israelis watch the news, have heard that bomb shelters are being prepared, know that Israel test-fired a missile into the sea two months ago — and a kind of panic has begun to overtake Israeli society, anxiety that missiles will start raining down soon.One of the obvious sources of complexity with regard to the decision concerns the relatively small window of opportunity available for Israel and the U.S. to attack and still put a significant dent in Iran's nuclear ambitions. It has been said that after just nine months, Iran's nuclear project, beleaguered after the highly-publicised assassinations of numerous top scientists, will be immune from Israeli attacks; the U.S., with its superior arsenal, is said to have fifteen months. Iran has been in pursuit of nuclear weapons for some time, but it would seem that covert efforts have been unable to meaningfully stall, much less halt, their progress.
Should the Iranians succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons, the results could be catastrophic. Aside from the country's expressed desire to destroy Israel, speculation that surrounding countries may feel compelled to go nuclear may prove to be frighteningly accurate. Ordinarily, my sympathies wouldn't lie with Israel, and I happen to think that Zionism is a generally bad idea, to put it mildly. Of course, that said, the situation is indifferent to my views on Israel. When it's likely that no more than a year remains to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weaponry, such things simply don't matter.
If I had the poor taste to place a bet on the likelihood of an attack on Israel's part, then I would bet in the affirmative. Whether actually suited to the country's best interests or not, I'm in no position to say, but the probable outcome is becoming increasingly obvious to me: the fear might be simply too much.
(Image: "The shrouded body of assassinated chemistry expert Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, who had been a director of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, Tehran, January 13, 2012," AP Photo/Iranian Students News Agency, Mehdi Ghasemi, source.)