The International Atomic Energy Agency's confirmation (pdf) of what we already knew – Iran is moving towards getting nukes – has poured a gallon of gasoline on the raging pro-Iran war fire. N-Pod, and other usual suspects have all come out guns a-blazing, while Romney makes his standard "Obama is the problem" non-argument. The most serious scenario for war:
[T]he Obama administration should not discount the possibility of an Israeli-Iranian nuclear conflict. From the very start, the nuclear balance between these two antagonists would be unstable. Because of the significant disparity in the sizes of their respective arsenals (Iran would have a handful of warheads compared to Israel's estimated 100-200), both sides would have huge incentives to strike first in the event of a crisis. Israel would likely believe that it had only a short period during which it could launch a nuclear attack that would wipe out most, if not all, of Iran's weapons and much of its nuclear infrastructure without Tehran being able to retaliate. For its part, Iran might decide to use its arsenal before Israel could destroy it with a preemptive attack. The absence of early warning systems on both sides and the extremely short flight time for ballistic missiles heading from one country to the other would only heighten the danger. Decision-makers would be under tremendous pressure to act quickly.
Fallows isn't convinced that a strike would succeed in preventing nuclearization. Paul Pillar hears echoes of Iraq in the coverage of the report. Yaakov Katz thinks the IAEA move will actually make war less likely:
The report also means that for the time being, an Israeli military strike will likely move to the back burner, and Jerusalem will focus instead on getting the world to impose crippling sanctions on Iran, not crippled sanctions like those that have already been passed.
Benjamin Weinthal explains what sorts of new sanctions might succeed in preventing an Iranian bomb. Marc Tracy imagines how China could be brought on board. And Ackerman develops a contingency containment strategy that might strengthen the American hand in the Middle East. For my part, I cannot see how we can prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, and I cannot see how we can prevent the current insane Israeli government from launching a war on Amalek, if Netanyahu and Barak are as deranged as Dagan and others fear they are. And if they do strike first, the impact on the West – a wave of Jihadism, a masssive attempt to unleash weapons of mass destruction on the West as revenge – would be cataclysmic. Not just in terms of human casualties but in terms of pushing what's left of the world into the worst depression of all time. If Israel believes this will help Israel, they truly need to be saved from themselves.
Containment is the only policy that makes sense; and it is a policy Israel refuses to tolerate and which the US has recklessly disavowed. Which means that it's likely that the country that could indirectly launch a third world war against the West could be Israel. You think Obama could stop them? And since the Israeli government has a lock on the US Congress, and a fervent following in the opposition fundamentalist party here, we'd all be directly implicated in an attack, even if we are never told in advance.
It's staggering that a world power would make its very survival contingent on one extremist government in another distant country. And there are times when I think we are sleepwalking into the worst conflagration since the Second World War.
The Dish 