My response to Ricks who, believing an Israeli attack on Iran is not credible, quotes Lieberman as ostensibly affirming his position [even though Lieberman is then quoted in interview with Jerusalem Post saying that Iran is key to securing the Middle East]:
Why take an attack off the table? No one wants a nuclear Iran, threat of an attack adds to leverage, so why take it off the table?
Three feasible explanations: it's disinformation; it's a manifestation of confusion or disagreement or posturing among Israeli policy makers; it's a recognition of possibility that an attack would be difficult to pull off and in the end suit Iran's purposes just fine therefore compromising utility of such.
If the latter, would Iran's putative interests trump what Israel ultimately considered to be in its best interests? Are there not reasons why they would want to keep an attack on the table regardless? Consider that keeping the threat of attack viable increases Israel's leverage in negotiations with Washington: Bibi's jaundiced view of the Palestinian issue is at odds with Obama's 'new world order': wouldn't Bibi want to keep the threat alive and hanging over Obama's head if only the better to get what he wants viz the Palestinians?
So, lots of questions, no clear answers - but keep this in mind: Israel has been resolute in its determination to not abide a nuclear Iran; whether that threat was real or just propaganda doesn't matter - if they now do not follow through and intercede to prevent it the perception in the region will be that Israel is weakened; Israel does not like to look weak and will be strongly motivated to compensate [just reference recent invasion of Gaza and how it was fueled by debacle in Lebanon - and that was with a moderate gov't calling the shots] . We're sitting here thinking that the worst thing that could happen is Israel attacking Iran, but imagine a scenario involving an aggressive and ambitious Iran armed with the bomb and a chastened Israel looking to counter a view of it as impotent and ask yourself if that's really the case.
There seems to be a growing tendency for opinions regarding the Israel/Iran question to break down into those who think it certainly will happen and those who think it certainly will not happen - but in reality there's a lot of grey here and it's not at all clear which outcome would prove the more dangerous.
