June 7, 2011
TEL AVIV - In contrast to, say, a year ago, few analysts now dare to consider a military strike on Iran in the near future as a serious possibility. On the contrary, most are dismissive of the idea, especially in as much as Israel is concerned. "One of the great bluffs in the foreign policy community in the previous decade was that Israel would have no choice but to attack Iran's nuclear facilities unless Washington stepped up and took military action first," writes Trita Parsi in Foreign Policy, offering a lucid analysis to explain why such an option is not feasible. <1>
Yet, despite all the good arguments, the Iranian front is becoming more complicated every week and month. Israel is by far not the only foreign threat to the ayatollahs, and its silence and apparent weaknesses can be misleading, as the past 44 years (since the 1967 war) have taught. It is seldom safe to call what may appear to be an Israeli bluff.
The advice of a prominent military historian stands out in this respect. Two years ago, during a period of heightened Israeli rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, I asked him privately for his opinion. He responded: "What seems to be different this time is all the
public arm-waving in advance of any action. Usually they act first, as they did recently in Syria, and say very little afterward. This inclines me to believe that there is more rhetoric than reality here."
In the past month or so, there has been some important debate in Israeli political and media circles about a strike on the Islamic Republic, but as a whole, it has been remarkably muted compared to the bluster of, say, a year ago. Back then, Jeffrey Goldberg, among others, stirred the spirits by predicting that "there is a better than 50% chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July". He drew that conclusion on the basis of his discussions with Israeli politicians and defense officials. <2>
in full: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF07Ak02.html