Insiders: Israel Will Attack Iran

Updated: May 30, 2013 | 12:01 a.m.
October 9, 2012 | 8:00 p.m.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Sunday, Dec. 25, 2011. (AP Photo/Uriel Sinai)

No:

"Israel is quite unlikely to strike before the elections. After the elections, assuming there is no deal with Tehran, a U.S. strike is quite likely, regardless of who the next president is."

"Israel does not have the capacity to conduct the sustained attack needed to destroy the Iranian nuclear program."

"High political-military risk with questionable payoff."

"U.S. will hold their hand."

"The political window for an attack is between now and the U.S. election on Nov. 6. Netanyahu doesn't have a political consensus at home in favor of an attack, so he is unlikely to follow through during what remains of that window."

"With the help of his U.S. supporters, Netanyahu's strategy all along has been to try [to] bully the Obama administration into waging war against Iran on Israel's behalf. Fortunately, Obama resisted the pressure, leaving Israel with the prospect of confronting Iran alone. As a result, Netanyahu, despite all of his saber-rattling and chest-beating, will back down, preferring a war of hot air to one of hot lead."

"Too many Israeli military leaders oppose it, and a strike could be effective only if complemented by a U.S. strike or supported by substantial U.S. intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and logistics. But a strike against Iran would undermine broader U.S. interests by embittering many Arabs and some Iranians. The best Western strategy is to back political opponents in Iran and pursue regime change. Even if it were ever possible, it is too late now to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

National Journal’s National Security Insiders Poll is a periodic survey of defense and foreign-policy experts.

They are:

National Security Insiders Gordon Adams, Charles Allen, Thad Allen, James Bamford, David Barno, Milt Bearden, Peter Bergen, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, David Berteau, Stephen Biddle, Nancy Birdsall, Kit Bond, Stuart Bowen, Paula Broadwell, Mike Breen, Steven Bucci, Nicholas Burns, Dan Byman, James Jay Carafano, Phillip Carter, Wendy Chamberlin, Michael Chertoff, Frank Cilluffo, James Clad, Richard Clarke, Steve Clemons, Joseph Collins, William Courtney, Roger Cressey, Gregory Dahlberg, Robert Danin, Richard Danzig, Paul Eaton, Andrew Exum, William Fallon, Eric Farnsworth, Jacques Gansler, Stephen Ganyard, Daniel Goure, Mike Green, Mark Gunzinger, Jim Harper, Michael Hayden, Pete Hoekstra, Bruce Hoffman, Paul Hughes, Colin Kahl, Donald Kerrick, Rachel Kleinfeld, Lawrence Korb, David Kramer, Andrew Krepinevich, Charlie Kupchan, W. Patrick Lang, Cedric Leighton, James Lindsay, Trent Lott, Peter Mansoor, Brian McCaffrey, Steven Metz, Franklin Miller, Philip Mudd, John Nagl, Shuja Nawaz, Kevin Nealer, Michael Oates, Thomas Pickering, Paul Pillar, Stephen Rademaker, Marc Raimondi, Celina Realuyo, Bruce Riedel, Barry Rhoads, Marc Rotenberg, Kori Schake, Mark Schneider, John Scofield, Tammy Schultz, Stephen Sestanovich, Sarah Sewall, Matthew Sherman, Jennifer Sims, Constanze Stelzenmüller, Frances Townsend, Mick Trainor, Suzanne Spaulding, Ted Stroup, Tamara Wittes, Dov Zakheim, and Juan Zarate.

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Most Recent Polls
Insiders: House Armed Services Committee Not as Powerful as in the Past

Some of National Journal's National Security Insiders point to the "emasculation of the chairman" as a key reason the panel has lost influence.

what do you think?
Insiders: Congress Ineffective in Oversight of National Security

Three-quarters of Insiders said Congress ineffectively oversees the executive branch's national security programs.

what do you think?
Insiders Split on Edits of Benghazi Talking Points

National Journal's National Security Insiders were split on whether the Obama administration's edits to remove any mention of terrorism from the original public statements on the Benghazi, Libya, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens showed it deliberately tried to mislead the American public.

what do you think?
Follow National Journal