The logic has some gaps. First, how does a regional peace initiative, which may succeed or fail, even if it succeeds, prevent Iran from becoming a vengeful nuclear power? Second, Dror says, "If I knew" that Iran would become a vengeful nuclear power he would not recommend a strike. But what happened to probabilities? Why does he have to know this? Why is it not a sufficient counter argument that there is a high probability of this outcome? And what happened to the pseudo image of careful calculation? Exactly how low does this outcome have to be for Dror's analysis to stand? Of course no one can say, so let's drop the pretense that there stands some exact rational calculus behind such opinions. Right now Iran seems to be seeking nuclear capability not possession of armed missiles. Is the probability that it will have nuclear weapons five years from now greater or less, if Israel launches an attack? Does anyone really know?
from the article: A double-barreled solution to Iran