Experts say that an attack, Israeli or otherwise, will only delay Iran and give them ample reason to develop nuclear weapons. All the publicly available evidence suggests that Iran so far has not made the decision to militarise its nuclear programme.
An attack would make that decision simple. The only real way to guarantee a nuclear weapons free Iran is to invade and occupy. There are very few that have the appetite for another US led war in the Middle East.
The thinking then is keep up the pressure on Iran and if it makes the decision to go nuclear then let containment be the predominant policy and hope that cooler heads prevail. There is a precedent for this theory, a precedent that is mentioned in the New York Times article.
Pakistan and India
Pakistan is said to have between 90 - 100 nuclear warheads. India has between 80-90. The Pakistan military prides itself on being able to launch quicker than India and has a first strike policy.
Both sides before they had nuclear weapons fought wars. Since the existence of the weapons has been acknowledged tensions have remained high, skirmishes between the armed forces of each nation occur regularly but no war has been fought. The thought of nuclear armageddon keeps both sides in check.
When I was in Tehran for the Non-aligned Movement summit at the end of August I spoke to several Iranians, some analysts, others journalists and I posed the same question to them all.
"Would Iran ever develop nuclear weapons?" The answer, in varying hues, was always the same; "Not now, but look at those countries that have not developed weapons. Iraq, Afghanistan. They have been invaded and occupied. Pakistan, India, North Korea have not."
So on the surface Iran has more reason than most to want an effective deterrent. Iran lives in a difficult neighbourhood.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan are its neighbours. To say the region is powder keg of tensions is no understatement. But by letting Iran develop weapons, if it chooses to do so and then hoping that containment will work is very big ask.
It requires both patience and pressure from the West and Israel and a U-turn in many publicly stated positions. By basing that on the case study of Pakistan and India poses some serious and difficult questions.
Israel and Iran
Arif Rafiq is an Adjunct Scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC and is a keen observer of Pakistan, India as well as Israel and Iran. He says that the Pakistan-Indian relationship is much more robust than Israel and Iran's.
"Pakistan and India have a hotline to warn each other, they also alert each other to military exercises, the 2 countries talk to each other, and that includes the political leadership. That co-operation began in in 1998, after the first nuclear tests and then deepened after the command and control systems for weapons were put in place in 2003. It's part of the rapprochement on advance measures stop accidental nuclear war."
Pakistan and India both know what's at stake. The maturity in their nuclear armed relationship is the key factor in the deterrent. What's missing from the Israel-Iran relationship is any kind of diplomacy, open or secret.
Dr Mahjoob Zweiri is an expert on Iranian affairs for Qatar University and has written several books on the country. He is skeptical that Iran and Israel, in the current climate, could find an accommodation.
"I think two main elements are important. Firstly the way Israel perceives Iran, to Israel it's a threat, not a challenge, it's a threat to the existence of the state. Because of the way the political discourse is, Israel does not believe that Iran will wage direct war against Israel.
"On the other hand, according Iranian security services, Israel is a challenge to the power of Iran in the region. Therefore best way to deal with Israel is to arm proxy's rather than direct confrontation, and they have achieved this goal at this point."
By arming the proxies, and for that read the Lebanese group Hezbollah amongst others, is what fuels Israel's position on Iran. Again Pakistan and India have long accused each other of arming proxy groups to carry out attacks in each other countries.
A war which came to a very real possibility in 2008 after the Mumbai bombings. I was in Islamabad at the time and Pakistan geared up for that war, when cooler heads prevailed, cooler heads tempered by nuclear weapons.
So with little scope to develop the kind of relationship Pakistan and India have, can there be a third way? Can Washington act?
If Iran develops nuclear weapons then The US may will have to step in, not as an aggressor, but as broker. But with little trust in Tehran that is a move that will require more diplomacy than has ever been seen since the Islamic republic came into being 1979.
Geography is also a hindrance. Pakistan and India share a massive border. Iran and Israel don't. The physical border means that Pakistan and India have to talk, because without clear lines of communication the worst case scenario is a frightening thought.
There's no real impetus for Iran and Israel to develop the kind of communication that India and Pakistan have and given all the language we have heard from both sides, no real desire either.
i think she was merely using some friendly sarcasm. Just sort of went to the other extreme from invading iran to forming a groovy utopia, in a sort of devil's-advocate manner. We were bantering in hypotheticals, sorry if it confused you.
here yesterday, today .. much appreciated and sympathized with all positions put .. i am all for no attack still .. as i know is the position MOST all in the discussion hold .. so far .. :)
Mideast Nuclear Talks Between Israel, Neighbors Called Off
By GEORGE JAHN Posted: 11/10/2012 3:08 pm EST Updated: 11/12/2012 5:18 pm EST
VIENNA (AP) — Attempts to find Arab-Israeli common ground on banning weapons of mass destruction from the Mideast have failed, and high-profile talks on the issue have been called off, diplomats said Saturday.
The two diplomats said the United States, one of the organizers, would likely make a formal announcement soon saying that with tensions in the region remaining high, "time is not opportune" for such a gathering. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge the cancellation ahead of the formal announcement.
The meeting – to be held in Helsinki, Finland, by year's end – was on shaky ground since it was agreed to in 2010 by the 189 member nations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Its key sponsors were the U.S., Russia and Britain, but they said such as meeting was only possible if all countries – especially Israel – agreed to attend.
The decision to postpone, if not to scrap it, will cast doubt on the significance of the NPT and its attempts every five years to advance nonproliferation. Any new attempt is unlikely until the NPT conference meets again in 2015.
Hopes for such a meeting were alive as recently as Tuesday, when Iran joined Arab nations in saying that it planned to attend, leaving Israel as the only undecided country. Tehran's announcement came at a Brussels seminar on a Mideast nuclear-free zone also attended by Israel and the Arab countries, and described as largely free of regional tensions. But the two diplomats said the decision to call off the Helsinki meeting had already been made by the time Iran declared Tuesday that it would attend.
But a decision to give up on staging such a gathering after it was approved by the NPT is more than a reflection of Mideast realities. It also is bound to weaken efforts at future NPT conferences to reconcile clashing visions of disarmament and nonproliferation efforts.
Daryl Kimball, head of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, warned that "an indefinite cancellation of the long-awaited conference on a Middle Eastern WMD-free zone will only worsen the proliferation risks in the future and undermine the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty."
Iran, the Arab nations and most other developing countries say the emphasis should be on the U.S. and other nuclear-armed states that are NPT members to disarm. Such nations also castigate the West for supporting Israel and its widely suspected nuclear weapons program. Washington and its allies say Iran, North Korea and Syria are the greatest proliferation threats, even though Tehran and Damascus deny allegations of secret nuclear activities linked to weapons.
The Arab proposal to create a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the Mideast and to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared arsenal of perhaps 80 nuclear warheads, was endorsed by the 1995 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty conference but never acted on. The conference meets every five years.
The two diplomats who spoke Saturday are from nations that were invited to the Helsinki meeting, which was to be open to all NPT-member nations. The diplomats also are from member nations of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.
While Syria's civil war, nuclear tensions with Iran and other Mideast frictions will be cited as the official reason for the cancellation, one of the diplomats acknowledged that the decision is mainly being taken because Israel has decided not to attend. The diplomat – from a Western nation sympathetic to Israel – said Arab countries have refused to budge from positions that made it impossible for the Jewish state to participate.
Israel has long said that a full Arab-Israeli peace plan must precede any creation of a Mideast zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The region's Muslim neighbors in turn have asserted that Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal presents the greatest threat to peace in the region. They insist that Israel declare its arsenal and join the NPT as part of any peace talks.
The diplomat said that while the announcement that the Helsinki meeting has been canceled might be made in the name of all three co-sponsors – the U.S, Russia and Britain – it would likely be delivered only by the United States, reflecting tensions between Moscow and Washington on the issue. He said the Russians have opposed declaring the meeting dead at this point.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
