A War That Would Spawn More War

A new RAND report comes out strongly against striking Iran. One snippet:

[A] post-attack Middle East may result in the worst of both worlds: a nuclear-armed Iran more determined than ever to challenge the Jewish state, and with far fewer regional and international impediments to doing so. Thus, what the region’s future may hold is not an Iran that has or has not acquired nuclear weapons, but rather a nuclear-armed Iran that has or has not been attacked by Israel. And while a nuclear-armed Iran that has not been attacked is dangerous, one that has been attacked may be much more likely to brandish its capabilities, to make sure that it is not attacked again.

Fallows nods. Meanwhile, Goldblog flags some evidence compiled by Anthony Cordesman that Iran is racing towards nukes. And Mehdi Khalaji worries about the prospects for negotiation:

Regardless of their outcome, the new negotiations have put Khamenei in a perilous position. As the person in charge of Iran's nuclear policy, compromising is as dangerous for the supreme leader as digging in his heels. This might be the last chance for the Iranian leadership to change its nuclear policy, prevent a military confrontation, and save the country's economy. But for Khamenei, nuclear concessions might also undermine his monopoly over domestic politics. Khamenei is not a suicidal jihadist. In 23 years of leadership, he has avoided engaging in risky domestic and foreign policies. But he is not immune to miscalculation.