4 Comments
User's avatar
Michael Behar's avatar

You posit that an attack on Iran would result in 100,000 rockets from Hezbollah in Lebanon. Of course Israel would be forced to invade Lebanon to eliminate the Hezbollah threat should hostilities ensue. This is a horrifying scenario, but is it worse than an Israel strategically hogtied by a nuclear Iran, or even worse the recipient of one or more Iranian nuclear warheads?

Expand full comment
Alan Dowty's avatar

The worst outcome is Iran with nuclear weapons. The next worse outcome is having to go to war to achieve that. Less worse than that would be the successful use of sanctions to force Iran back in the box. Is that possible? Let's try it before resorting to war.

Expand full comment
C. Clark Kissinger's avatar

I don't think the question of whether Netanyahu will attack Iran can be analyzed from the narrow perspective of internal Israeli politics. While Israel has relative independence, it does not have absolute independence, given its financial and military dependence on the U.S. I think it rather improbable that Netanyahu would present the U.S. with a fait accompli. So the bigger question is would the U.S. choose to use an Israeli attack on Iran as a part of a much larger military move in its contention with Russia and China.

Expand full comment
Alan Dowty's avatar

I agree that the U.S. link is a critical part of any Israeli decision on attacking Iran. Subject for another time.

Expand full comment