Last week a well informed Israeli journalist revealed that his country is ready to eliminate Iran’s nuclear facilities with an air strike. Israel’s current political leadership proclaims it is “close” to decisive action.  Arguments for intervention in Iran split Israeli society evenly into two camps. One side argues for a swift military assault, and the other advocates successive tightening of U.S.-led international sanctions.

Members of the Iranian army land force academy perform manoeuvres during a graduating ceremony in Tehran November 10, 2011. Iran’s Supreme Leader warned the United States and Israel on Thursday not to launch any military action against its nuclear sites, saying it would be met with “iron fists,” state television reported. REUTERS/Leader.ir/Handout

Until now, the Israeli cabinet has not authorized military intervention.  New information may affect the cabinet’s decision making.  On November 8, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report suggesting that Iran is on its way to acquire a nuclear weapon.  There is “damming” evidence on indicators of nuclear explosives, procurement, detonator development and computer models of nuclear explosives.  Still, the report remains ambiguous as to when Iran will have the atomic weapon.

Long- time rivals Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barack agree on military intervention, another sign that Israel is indeed poised for action.

Could the global community stand another war in the Middle East?

Those lobbying for the intervention count on the air strikes being “surgical.” Critics of intervention fear that the plan may be simplistic and overambitious: destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities.  The wide-reaching plan will not stop in Iran. It is likely to include liquidating the military installations of Hizbullah in Lebanon and those of Hamas in Gaza. These two resistance movements are Iran’s staunch allies against Israel.

Timing in war is significant.  Israel’s hawks see in current events an historic opportunity to weaken Iran and its allies who suddenly face simultaneous challenges. Iran faces escalating international sanctions. Syria is dealing with a popular insurrection.  Hamas has lost Syria’s support.  Finally, Hizbullah faces an international tribunal investigating the murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

Timing for this controversial military operation again comes into play as the current U.S. election cycle enhances Netanyahu’s freedom of action. In a very tight election, President Obama will not have the political leverage to control the prime minister’s adventures in launching a war, not to mention construction of housing on contested land.

Israel’s security experts are brave.  It is telling that the strongest argument for patient exercise of diplomacy and sanctions comes from the leadership of Israel’s national security and intelligence. Former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, declared that it is “stupid” for his country to attack Iran. Dagan estimates that Iran will not be able to produce an atomic weapon before 2015. 

Four factors make it hard for Iran to develop or use the atomic bomb in the foreseeable future: Iran’s technology of atomic defense is highly monitored. This technology has proven recently to be vulnerable to clandestine digital sabotage. The atomic weapon does not discriminate between Iran’s foes and friends: half the population in Israel’s controlled land is Palestinian. And finally, Iran has no recent history of launching wars across borders.

Also, democracy is not dead in Iran.  President Ahmadinejad will end his term in June 2014. Iranians will probably elect a new president before they are able to assemble an atomic bomb. Then the Iranian people will decide how best to harness their nuclear energy.

Israeli fear of Iran’s menace is not widely shared in the international community. The foreign minister of France, Alain Juppe, cautions Israel against “destabilizing the region.” Despite the rise of the level of risk coming from Tehran, no European nation has so far opted for a military solution. The standard diplomatic line is “keep all options on the table.”

The U.S. is not a neutral observer in this conflict.  If Israel starts a war with Iran, then Syria, Lebanon and Gaza may be involved even if they are not directly attacked. Consequently, America will be dragged into a regional conflict. If attacked, Iran and its local agents will retaliate with vengeance. For example, Iran could close the Hormuz Straight, disrupt the flow of oil and attack U.S .military presence in the Gulf and elsewhere in the region. Washington is reluctant to start a new war in the Middle East, given its enormous national debt, its negative image in the region and the grim outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What about the Arab position? Despite their strong differences with Tehran, most Arab states are against a new war in the region. True, the leaders of Saudi Arabia — not necessarily their people — and some chiefs of Gulf Arab states are tacitly in favor of an Israeli intervention in Iran.  People are being challenged with rebellion and reform politics; many are excited about removing unpopular leaders.

In discussing Iran, the rapid developments in Syria should not be ignored. An Israeli war with Iran may freeze progress in a decisive revolution in Syria. Long awaited regime change or radical reform in Syria might turn Iran into a political orphan, a country without strong allies. A “softened” Iranian leadership is more likely to cooperate with the international community on the nuclear issue.

One important outcome of the Arab Spring is that people are no longer as inclined to blame Israel and the West for all their social ills. Why then would Israel wish to reignite Arab and Muslim anger by launching a new war in the neighborhood?

The peace process is also relevant to Iran.  Let the sanctions on Iran work.  Then a humbled Iran may pressure Hamas to commit to non violence and unite with the Palestinian Authority in negotiating peace. In the same vein, progress in the peace process may lead Hizbullah’s military wing to join the Lebanese army and focus on politics.

War is not surgical. There are safer ways to secure Israel and to advance justice and stability in the region.