'Israel ponders how to handle a nuclearised Iran'

Oxford Analytica Excerpts: 'An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities remains unlikely unless a 'now-or-never' moment is looming. Even then, the effectiveness and consequences of an attack are not guaranteed. Israel is considering how it could live with a nuclear Iran ..... .... Israel will also have to boost its conventional deterrence. This is likely to take into account a less favourable regional environment, in which Washington may have less influence and pressure grow to endorse a regional nuclear-free zone, while Tehran's proxies operate under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. There are several unknowns that condition an Israeli decision to attack: Success of an attack. A key question is whether an attack would be successful in pushing back Iran's nuclear programme, and for how long. Israeli assessments are that a successful military strike would cause a serious but not insurmountable delay...  Impact on Iran's regime. The precedent of Iraq's invasion of Iran in September 1980 is frequently referred to as evidence that an attack would have a serious pro-regime backlash domestically....  Israel expects Iranian retaliation via Hizbollah and terror attacks ... International responses. An attack without prior agreement with allies may also draw strong condemnation more widely...

delaying tactics will continue to be the best option: Israel will continue to push for tighter international sanctions. It will cooperate with friendly intelligence services to carry out sabotage, interdiction and targeted assassinations.... ...... Israel will have to face the challenge of balancing its claim that a nuclear Iran is an 'existential threat' with the need to live (and thrive) under the shadow of a nuclear Iran. Though Israel's deterrent may discourage Iran from direct aggression, Tehran could still use its nuclear capability as a shield, rather than as a sword. This would offer Iran's proxies an umbrella of impunity for more aggressive behaviour in the pursuit of its regional ambitions -- including undermining Israel. For Israel, there are two major concerns in this regard: The threat posed by a nuclear Iran will undermine Israel's appeal for Israelis, world Jewry, and foreign investors, triggering a brain drain and capital flight that would deprive the country of its most important asset -- human capital. An emboldened nuclear Iran could wreak havoc to the current regional fragile status quo, while, given its arsenal, severely constraining Israel's options. Israel would need to find a way to balance these two contradicting propositions. It must reassure its own friends, citizens, and foreign investors that Israel has the means to contain and countenance Iran's nuclear threat in ways that will not diminish the quality of life and opportunities Israel offers. At the same time, it must seek ways to address a new strategic environment where its ability to deter enemies will be more constrained than at present.