Let's remove all the worldwide myriad of discussions, guesswork, theorizing, punditry, forecasting of consequences, and the like. Let's focus instead on the perception of one group of theorizers, that being the group of people who would most likely experience the nuclear detonation over their house ... that being Israel.
The people of Israel have the most serious, and most existential stake in the game. We in America or Europe, though acknowledging the dangers of an Iranian bomb, seem more concerned about being dragged into another war, higher oil prices, increased terrorism, etc, when contemplating our actions regarding stopping Iran's march to the bomb.
However, the concern of the people of Israel in this matter is about being vaporized ... not oil prices. Indeed they are concerned about the literal loss of Israel as a functioning or existing country should such a weapon be used.
The United States could likely absorb several such blasts and continue to function. Israel cannot. One or two well placed 13 to 18 kiloton 'Hiroshima sized' nuclear detonations, (small by current standards), that came without warning time to prepare, could render Israel unable to regroup or recover as a functioning institution due to deaths and destruction, not to mention the possibility of large areas in a small country being uninhabitable to to the possibility of radioactive contamination. (Let us not forget the U.S. spent years recovering from just four deliberate airliner crashes). It would also be naive to believe that the first 'batch' out of Iran's nuclear production would be limited to just one device.
* (The question of whether Jerusalem, Israel's capital city, is a potential nuclear target of Iran has been a subject of debate as it is also a holy site to the Muslims).
In the last few years, the government and leadership of Iran has publicly advocated the elimination of Israel and publicly stated that Israel has no right to exist. The government of Iran has in fact been attacking Israel de facto with rockets and suicide bombers for years via their proxy army of Hezbollah, and other Iranian supported groups.
In the Iran/Iraq war, Iran demonstrated a willingness to send tens of thousands of it's citizens to senseless deaths and non-combatant women and children running across fields to clear minefields and face Saddam's poison gases and chemicals. They were considered an acceptable martyrdom loss for their country's ruling Ayatollahs' vision of Allah's will. These same leaders and this same philosophy remain in Iran today.
In light of Iran's history with Israel, and Iran's own history of acceptable losses in large martyrdom numbers, do we seriously believe that Israel will take us seriously when they hear world voices (with less of a stake) asking them to be patient about Iran's nuclear weapon plans? When the world asks Israel to practice restraint, or suggests that Iran 'may not' be building a bomb, are they even listening? Would we in the U.S be listening to such voices if we discovered the drug cartels next door to us were about to acquire a nuke?
From Israel's point of view, being 'patient', or 'guessing', about this matter is not an option. One second too late on the patience, or one wrong guess, and Israel does indeed cease to exist in a millisecond flash several times hotter than the core of the sun. We wouldn't wait to act preemptively and we shouldn't be surprised if they don't either. I doubt we'd accept the world asking us to 'take one (nuclear explosion) for the team'.
"But Iran doesn't have a missile to deliver the bomb"! True, but there's no reason a pickup truck or car trunk won't do the job. As a pragmatic matter Israel's decision for timing to act may not be based upon when Iran may actually have a bomb, or when Iran has the ability to build one. The 'go' moment may be when Israel can no longer see the progress and is unsure of the stage of development, or when Iran approaches the moment that they can make their facilities invulnerable to preemptive attack. That is the time when it is too late for Israel.
An 'attempt' to destroy the facilities would not suffice. There must be a guarantee the attack would be successful as there is no other acceptable outcome for Israel. There has been suggestion that Israel may not possess the military ability to destroy the facilities and would require the help of the U.S. (the only military with the capability to do so with non-nuclear weapons) in order to be successful.
The U.S has sent public signals that it may not help Israel. Israel is a nuclear armed country. If Israel is left to fend for itself and deems a preemptive attack necessary, and it cannot destroy the facilities with conventional weapons, and it deems it's survival and very existence are at stake, would they then resort to nuclear weapons to assure their survival? What would we do if it was our country (or house or chidren)?
It is not the purpose of this blog to support Israel and an attack on Iran, or to not support such an action. Indeed, even within Israel, there are many points of view on the issue of Iran's nukes, the severity of the situation, and appropriate course of action. The goal here is to inject a piece into the discussion of what actions to take or not take, based the reality of others with a more direct and serious stake in the matter. Israel's concerns about their very existence should be discussed in our equations, not just whether we pay more for oil.
In our Western cemented view that all things can have an acceptable outcome, we should recognize that there is no good ending to this situation for any parties - including Israel or any of the rest of us. In this matter, there are only outcomes that are less unacceptable than others and the severity of the outcome is determined by whose eyes it is being viewed though.
