Attack on Iran seems less likely for now, or so it is claimed

Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad inspects
centrifuges for concentrating uranium. (IRNA)
It was nearly nine years ago that I wrote my first it's-possible-Iran-may-soon-be-attacked-to-smash-its-nuclear-capability post at Daily Kos. Then, as now, unraveling what's real, what's possible, what's reasonable, what's propaganda, what's diplomatic maneuvering, what's chest-thumping and what's cover for psychological warfare is no straightforward matter.

Three months ago, what made it into public discourse hinted that an attack on Iran was just around the corner. Now it seems that an attack is far less likely. But was it all that likely in January? And is it less likely now? Or is it the same now as it was then? And what was it then?

Many purport to know. And those who make the claim usually are in the camp that says an attack by Israel or the United States to cripple Iran's nuclear facilities is imminent. But it would take a parallel computer array to calculate the number of times someone, amateur or professional, has said in the past decade with absolute certainty that Iran was on the verge of getting blasted. In just one of a jillion scenarios proferred by various theorists, George W. Bush was going to order an attack in October 2004 to seal his reelection bid. That, obviously, didn't happen and was, presumably, never even proposed even though his administration was brimful of ideologues who wanted to attack.

Of the current situation, James Risen writes:

[American officials and outside experts] cite a series of factors that, for now, argue against a conflict. The threat of tighter economic sanctions has prompted the Iranians to try more flexible tactics in their dealings with the United States and other powers, while the revival of direct negotiations has tempered the most inflammatory talk on all sides.

A growing divide in Israel between political leaders and military and intelligence officials over the wisdom of attacking Iran has begun to surface. And the White House appears determined to prevent any confrontation that could disrupt world oil markets in an election year.

'I do think the temperature has cooled,' an Obama administration official said this week.

If you're not one of the majority of Americans who, according to one poll, would favor a military strike on Iran if it appears the regime is building a nuclear weapon, cooling temperatures make for encouraging news. But, as Risen points out, "optimism could fade."

There are all kinds of reasons why it would be better that Iran not have nuclear weapons, something that can be said of every nation that already has them. Whether or not Tehran's authoritarian leaders actually seek to build one is an argument for which anybody pro or con can come up with a supporting document, report or statement by a relevant official. To offer just one example, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa in 2005 against building nukes, calling them a "great sin." On the other hand, he is said to have spoken in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war three decades ago in favor of nuclear weapons to protect the regime. Both the alleged subterfuge behind the fatwa and interpretations of the 1984 statement have come under critical fire.

Untangling what is and is not reality in this matter, as noted, isn't a simple matter. What's clear, however, and has been for a long time, is that attacking Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities is a very, very bad idea'politically, diplomatically, economically and militarily'with repercussions that would reverberate for decades. If, as we read today, the chances of such an attack are truly reduced, hurrah.