What difference the Iran deal?

Some Israelis have expressed the hope a post-Obama president will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. To me it seems a forlorn hope.

Could Israel destroy Iran's nuclear facilities on its own?

The main reason I have for doubting Israel's capabilities is that they haven't already done so. I mean it's a no-brainer. If you can stop a bunch of "Mad Mullahs" getting nukes why wouldn't you?

And here we have a quandary. From the Israeli perspective what's worse than a nuclear armed Iran? The answer is easy to see. It's an Iran that acquires a nuclear capability after a failed Israeli attempt to stop it. The risks of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities are great and the cost of failure high.

There is a sober lesson from the past. In 1981 the Israelis bombed Iraq's Osirak reactor. They thought that had put paid to Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

As the world learned in the aftermath of the first Gulf War in 1990 that was not the case. Iraq's nuclear program had moved underground but continued.

My own feeling is that unless Israel has some secret capabilities that enable it to deliver a knock-out blow against Iran's nuclear facilities it is going to have to learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran.

Realistically, what can Israel do to stop it?

But that's not the end of the story. Military planners in the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia, can do these calculations too. In fact they will have better information than me. They've all been arming themselves to the teeth. The Gulf States militaries are currently outspending the Iranians by a margin of at least three to one.

Does anyone believe that Saudi Arabia will let Iran become the military hegemon of the Middle-East?

Can anyone doubt the Saudis will arm themselves with delivery systems and nukes to match Iran?

We are going to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle-East.

Now there's a really scary thought. The Iranian Mad Mullahs versus the Saudi Mad Imams.