Curious comments form Gates and Israeli Prez Peres - to wit, attack on Iranian nuke sites out of the question. Gates point was that an attack wouldn't succeed, by which he seemed to mean wouldn't entirely abrogate Iranian nuke threat, and that the upshot would be everyone would hate the Jews [he's kidding, right?]; Peres just seemed to need to express his opinons that an attack was not going to happen, that they're committed to negotiations etc etc.
Israel has made it clear that they do not intend to let Iran get the bomb: they've run simulations, practiced refueling options, various leaders have stated openly or strongly inferred that only over their dead bodies would the Persians be allowed to develop nukes - and so Peres' statement is very odd and I have no explanation for it other than he felt the need to get his personal opinion out there for some reason. One could speculate that Israel was always bluffing and Peres speaking marked their new negotiating posture - but why now? Doesn't really make any sense. Could be the case but if so seems kind of ineptly managed, which leads me to believe it ain't the case.
Gates though - his comment about if they do it everyone will hate the Jews is flat out absurd and makes me think this is just the US wanting to get out in front of things so as to try and stay as clean as possible when the shit hits the fan. His second point about the attacks only slowing down and not stopping the nuke program seems to deliberately ignore the notions that one, Israel may be ok with that and two, the show of stength and resolve may be just as important to them as slowing down the program. Think about it: if they allow Iran to develop nukes after all they've said to the contrary then they are gonna look weak and everyone is gonna know that America has sided with Iran against Israel - that's to put it a bit too simply but in essence that would be the message. Does anyone really believe Israel is going to sit still for that? But consider it further: even if Israel does capitulate does that not create a dynamic that could prove just as dangerous? Israel will be chastened, it will look weak and somewhat isolated - it is therefore logical to expect that they will be extra motivated to exhibit strength against their perceived enemies. It is entirely plausible that by stopping Israel from attacking Iran because of fears of what devils could be unleashed you could be creating a scenario where those devils are unleashed regardless - in fact unleashed explicitly because Israel feels its very existence is in peril, the exact dynamic that pertains viz Iran.
Another thought as well: if US was really confident that Israel was going to be governed by them viz attack wouldn't they keep their mouths shut so as to keep up pressure on Iran? I mean, if you know Israel is not actually going to go through with it wouldn't the smart move be to leave the possibility in play? And, for a kicker, let's not forget that most of the Arab states in the region would be pleased if Israel took out Iran's nukes, although publicly they no doubt would make some show of outrage. Considering all these points makes me believe more likely attack will happen than not. Peres' statement can now be fit into a plausible scenario - misdirection, get the Iranians believing the game is going their way.
Having said all that I still find it hard to accept it will happen - and having said that logic still points to it happening - in fact Gates' comments have made the logic of it happening more convincing, not less.
