This analysis rightly points out that an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program would escalate into a long struggle as Iran seeks nukes and revenge while Israel continues to try to stop Iran's program:
Put bluntly, war is not an option in responding to the difficult issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
This is true to some degree. But it misses the point. The problem is with the Iranian nutball regime having nuclear weapons. We don't worry about France having nukes. We don't even worry that much about the current Pakistani using nukes (we worry about them losing control of them to nutballs). Smashing up the nutball regime's nuclear program just buys time.
Yes, a war against Iran's nuclear capabilities just leaves the regime intact to rebuild the nuclear program and cause more trouble. But the long term implications of Iran getting a nuclear arsenal are even worse, in my opinion. Even if Iran never uses a nuke, they will be more aggressive behind the shield of their nuclear weapons. And Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt will go nuclear when they can in response. Perhaps Iraq, too.
Israel will need to openly proclaim their nuclear arsenal to attempt to maintain deterrence. And that will give the above states an excuse to develop nuclear weapons without admitting that Iran is the real worry. When nukes are floating around from the eastern Mediterranean Sea to South Asia, how long will it be before a nuke is used in anger (perhaps by a non-state actor that manages to acquire one)? Or by accident? America and the Soviet Union had the luxury of a whole twenty minutes from when a launch in one country was detected to the time of impact around the globe. What's the flight time from western Iran to Ankara? Or from eastern Turkey to Tehran? Or across the Persian Gulf. Or pick any other points, if you'd like.
It is a mistake to mistake this one type of narrowly focused war as the only war option. Amazingly, the study's authors see only two options to their war scenario--convincing Iran through diplomacy to halt their nuclear program or learning to stop worrying and love the Iranian atomic bomb.
The real alternative is a more effective kind of war. The real war is one that targets the Iranian mullah regime. A non-nutball regime with nukes is far less threatening than a nutball regime without nukes. Other states might not pursue nukes out of prestige rather than fear. Or at least it would be at a slower pace. And who knows? If Iran becomes a democracy, they might decide that pouring resources into nuclear weapons isn't the best use of limited money available.
War may or may not be the answer to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But you have to tell me what kind of war before you conclude that war is not an option. And you have to tell me why you haven't concluded that Iran has been waging war on us for more than three decades. Iran already thinks this is a fight to the death--our death. Israel may be in the cross hairs, too (and most immediately), but don't think we aren't the ultimate target.
