Also here:

The Bush administration's recent diplomatic overtures toward Iran have unleashed a torrent of criticism from neoconservatives and have fueled concerns in Israel that Washington is shelving the option of using military force against Tehran's nuclear facilities.
...cont...

Despite Israel's top-notch air force, launching a long-range strike against a multitude of hidden targets in Iran entails huge risks and uncertain rewards. At most, say Israeli intelligence sources, an attack - which Israel would undertake with only a nod and perhaps logistical support from the U.S. - is likely to stall Iran's program by just a year or two. And that makes the cost-benefit analysis weigh against an air strike on Iran, according to some senior Israeli officials who urge caution.

"The Americans had spies in Iran until they were rounded up in 2003 and now they do not have much by way of humint [human intelligence] on the ground. The Israelis have better information. But the Americans went away from the meetings unconvinced that the Israelis have enough intelligence on where to strike, and with little confidence that they will be able to destroy the nuclear programme."

The shortage of good intelligence could explain reports that President George W Bush has quietly sanctioned a dramatic increase in covert operations by American special forces inside Iran. These intelligence gaps lay behind Admiral Mullen's decision to speak out on Wednesday against military action, saying it would be "extremely stressful" to "open a third front" in the war on terror. But the admiral is at odds with hawks in the Bush administration, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney.

A former CIA officer with three decades of Iranian experience said: "Their belief... is that the US would get the blame from Iran whether or not we play a major role in any attack, so we might as well do the job properly."

Israel gives the impression that it was completely unprepared for the recent dramatic switch in American policy toward Iran. The Bush administration did not consult with Israel before deciding to add a senior American diplomat to the talks the Europeans are conducting with the Iranians, nor did Washington inform Jerusalem of its intentions to open an interests section in Tehran. The Prime Minister's Bureau received word of America's new policy almost at the last minute, just in order to ensure that Israel would not be taken totally by surprise. If clandestine diplomatic feelers between Washington and Tehran preceded the announcement, Israel was left completely in the dark as to their existence.

The American "detente" with Iran has one obvious consequence: As long as the diplomatic game continues, there is not the slightest chance in the world of any aggressive action being taken against Iran's nuclear program. Which means no bombing of nuclear facilities. And no naval blockade and no prevention of commercial flights from Iran, as Israel has proposed. If even a minor-ranking American diplomat is posted in Tehran, to ostensibly "speak with the people," the Iranian regime will enjoy total immunity.

Israeli leaders are still hoping that all is not lost, that America is merely making a strategic move here, that Washington is simply dangling a bit of diplomatic bait that will be doomed to fail but which can pave the way for a military strike. But all that is simply wishful thinking. The American public has no stomach today for an additional war and its army opposes the idea of opening up a "third front" in Iran, after Afghanistan and Iraq.
...snip..