I believe that Iran can still be stopped before it acquires nuclear weapons, yet under conditions that do not exist at the moment and should be created. All the relevant governments currently prefer the political option. Yet one has to assume that just negotiations will not stop the Iranians, simply because above all they want to get the bomb. If anything could convince them to suspend their nuclear activities it is the combination of two elements. First, impose severe and prolonged economic sanctions. Clearly, the sanctions currently imposed on Iran are not sufficient to change its approach, and it is difficult to achieve an international agreement on harsher sanctions. And second, convince the Iranians that if they continue to reject the deal offered to them, they might face a military attack against their nuclear facilities. This does not suggest that a military operation should necessarily be taken. But it does suggest that a credible threat should be created in order to support the diplomatic efforts. The fact is – as the December 2007 NIE report suggested – that when the Iranian were scared by the American intervention in Iraq in 2003, they decided to freeze the military part of their nuclear program.

The other option to stop Iran is the military one. There are only two potential candidates to carry out a military operation against the Iranian nuclear sites – the US and Israel, who do not exclude this option. The military option is problematic, complicated and dangerous. Moreover, in order to decide whether to attack, a series of questions should be answered. These are the most important questions:

• Has the diplomatic option been exhausted? As long as there is still a fair chance to stop Iran by political means, the tendency will be to postpone the military option. The problem is that it is difficult to agree when the diplomatic course is exhausted, because one can always hope that the next round of negotiations, or the next proposal, will bring better results.

• When is the right time for a military operation? Since a military operation is relevant only as long as Iran has not acquired its first bomb, the timetable for the operation depends on the assessment of its acquisition. The problem is that until now all the assessments of the Iranian timetable have proved to be mistaken and it is not clear whether the current assessments are better.

• What are the chances of success? The answer to this critical question depends on a number of factors, such as: the ability to gather accurate qualitative intelligence regarding what happens under the ground; the acquisition of advanced accurate ammunition; and the capability to bring this ammunition successfully to the target.

• To what extent will the operation succeed to delay the Iranian nuclear program? A military operation will be justified only if it succeeds to delay the Iranian nuclear program by at least several years. If the assessment is that the Iranian nuclear program will be delayed for no more than one or two years, perhaps it should not be carried out.

• What will be the Iranian reaction to the attack? There is no doubt that the Iranians will respond to the attack. The question is to what extent will their reaction create far reaching implications on the attacker, as well as for the region?

• Will the US decide to attack, and alternatively, what will be the American attitude toward an Israeli operation? This is a critical question for Israel. If the US decides to attack, it will solve the very difficult dilemma for Israel. Alternatively, if the American administration tells Israel not to launch an attack, probably Israel will not be able to carry it out.

• Finally, can we live with nuclear Iran? The question is critical especially for Israel, because Israel is the only country which takes into consideration the possibility of an Iranian nuclear attack against its territory. If Israel assumes that an Iranian nuclear attack is a possibility – even a low probability possibility – it might conclude that it has no other option but to attack. Alternatively, if Israel assumes that Iran will not attack, it might consider other options to minimize the other security problems that nuclear Iran will create.

My conclusion is that a military attack, either by the US or Israel, is feasible, yet these two candidates should be able to give reliable answers to the above mentioned questions before a decision is made. In any case, the military option should be constantly prepared, both to increase the pressures on Iran, and to be ready to carry it out once the conditions are ripe for it