Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned U.S. President Barack Obama that Israel must be “master of its fate” and therefore any decision to attack Iran over its nuclear ambitions is really up to the Jewish state alone.

Israel has not, reportedly, made any decision to attack Iran’s nuclear sites but there is no indication from the recent exchanges between the two leaders that Netanyahu is going to back away from the possibility of using a preemptive, unilateral military strike to destroy, or at least delay, Iran’s nuclear plans.

Netanyahu may have been looking for a blank check from Obama, but he didn’t get one. However, there is no indication that Obama’s plea for Israeli restraint has had much impact on Netanyau’s thinking. The two leaders continue to disagree about what should be the threshold that would trigger any possible military action against Iran.

Iran says its nuclear program is for energy and medical purposes. The Obama administration does not think military force is necessary unless there is clear proof that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. The American intelligence community sees limited benefits in attacking Iran at this juncture.

When it comes to debating a possible war with Iran, there is a big dilemma. Former U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates puts it best: “Those who say we shouldn’t attack, I think, underestimate the consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And those who say we should underestimate the consequences of going to war.”

How the world resolves this dilemma will not be easy, and countries like Thailand are not out of the loop. Just consider the actions of Iranian-backed Hezbollah activists in the country recently. Thai political leaders try to calm the public by saying that Thais are not targeted, suggesting that the Middle Eastern militia group are only after American and Israeli citizens and interests in this country and internationally. They fall short of saying it is fine to use Thailand as a staging ground, but that’s typical of Thai politicians.

Unfortunately, the debate among American presidential hopefuls from the Republican Party has been too superficial, as the rhetoric coming from them is designed simply to gain popular support rather than promoting a serious debate. These presidential candidates make it seem like an attack on Iran would be little more than target practice for the U.S. and Israeli militaries and any other countries that decided to support them.

However, hardly any security or military expert ― Israeli and American included ― believe that an airstrike against Iran would be able to halt the nuclear program. If anything, said CIA Director Leon Panetta, the program would be set back by one or two years at most.

A land invasion of Iran would be a nightmare scenario for any foreign force, so that option seems to be out of the question already. An attacked Iran would make a comeback and rebuild. If anything, it would give Iran an even better excuse to pursue the development of nuclear weapons, even if it is not doing so already.

Moreover, Iran would not take an airstrike sitting down. There are other retaliatory options, including strikes against US troops in Afghanistan, U.S. oil interests in the Middle East, and U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf. If the failed bomb plot in Bangkok is any indication, Iran could very well call up its operatives around the world to attack various targets. We think the price of oil is high now, but (in the event of an attack on Iran) wait until Hezbollah focuses on American or Israeli targets globally.

True, few in the global community, and especially its Arab neighbours, except Syria, trust Iran. But nobody can seriously think that Iran is suicidal enough to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, Western Europe or the U.S.

Military action should not be ruled out, but for now, diplomacy must be permitted to take its due course, and sanctions, if need be, can be tightened. A strike against Iran would satisfy some hardliners but would be very unlikely to leave Israeli and American interests globally any more secure than they are now.

(The Nation (Thailand))

(Asia News Network)