While I understand Netanyahu’s concerns, I think an Israeli attack could be counterproductive. It would shatter the international coalition against Iran, collapse the sanctions program when it is starting to bite and trigger consequences that cannot be predicted, especially during a time of sweeping change in the Middle East. [emphasis added]
We can argue whether largely Sunni Arabs will really be upset that Shia Persians won't get the bomb. But if Iran continues to advance toward a nuclear weapons capability despite possibly too late "biting" sanctions, why on Earth would you worry that the international coalition united to stop Iran from going nuclear would be shattered by someone doing something that actually stops Iran from going nuclear--the purported objective of that coalition?
After being on this diplomatic track for so long, painfully gathering members of the coalition to take small additional steps that never seem to stop Iran, have people forgotten that the objective of this track is to stop Iran from going nuclear rather than gathering a bigger audience to watch Iran go nuclear?
And people seem to forget in their exploration of the bad consequences of trying to stop Iran from going nuclear what the consequences of Iran having nuclear weapons to that "one-bomb" state, Israel, might be. Not to mention the consequences of what Israel would do in retaliation for being struck by nuclear weapons.
If Iran is prevented from going nuclear by an effective attack, I don't care one bit about the continuation of the international coalition gathered for the purpose of stopping Iran from going nuclear.
Of course, if the real purpose of the coalition is to delay real action long enough to learn to love the Iranian bomb, then it all makes sense:
In an interview, veteran Democratic foreign policy insider Stuart Eizenstat admits that the Obama administration has not placed all options on the table for dealing with Iran. The Times of Israel reports:
Asked whether he could then envisage the United States, at the head of an international coalition, intervening militarily, Eizenstat said: “Well, I don’t want to say militarily. I want to say ‘intervene with other capabilities.’”
In other words, Eizenstat is saying that America will is not likely ever to use military action against Iran nuke program.
When you keep saying that force is the "last" option, learning to love the Iranian bomb obviously comese before the use of force.
How long that spectacular coalition will last after Iran gets the bomb should be the question.
