Alarming Reassurance

The window for near-term constructive engagement between the West and Iran appears to be closing. The Iranians, apparently unable to conclude an agreement with the West for domestic or internal power struggle reasons, seem to have defiantly retrenched. Should this window indeed close, the West will likely return to step 4 or 5 of the previous strategy of sanctions. However, are the Israelis prepared to return to the same strategy? And what signals might they give if they weren't "on board"?

Recent press statements by Israeli officials seem intended to downplay the possibility of Israeli military action, highlighting both lack of capability (logistical difficulty of an air strike on Iranian facilities) and intention (willingness to await the results of negotiations). Yet, this is in sharp contrast to Israeli's previous talking points--essentially, Israel will not allow a nuclear-armed Iran. Have the Israelis backed down due to the risks involved with an attack? Are they giving the Iranians diplomatic room to reach a deal? Or are the Israelis setting up a surprise attack?

The Israelis are not debutantes to surprise attacks, doling out several devastating strikes and once lulled into complacency prior to an attack upon themselves. What sort of signals should one expect prior to an Israeli assault on Iranian nuclear facilities? If history in general is any indicator, silence and misdirection. While many of Israel's current talking points are indeed soberingly valid (and most likely indicative of Israel's true intentions), it should not be forgotten that reassurance is at the same time also a signal for impending surprises.

Note (3.17.2010): Misdirection could take the form of "headline-grabbers" not related to Iran, but Israeli actions elsewhere.