Is an attack on Iran inevitable?

There has been a fair amount of speculation in the media over the United States' intentions on Iran,amid rumours of rehersal attacks by Israel and American policy in the Middle East.

It is worth reading Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker who firmly believes that the Bush administration is gearing up for an attack.

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Whether this intelligence is a prelude to a military strike is unclear and as Hersh points out

there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary.

This weeks Economist also looks at the issue vis a vie Israel and concludes that

Such an attack would be a mistake. Even if it did not turn the region into a “fireball”, as Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world’s nuclear watchdog, has predicted, it would certainly provoke retaliation. Given Iran’s size and sophistication, it would at best delay rather than end whatever plans the Iranians have to become a nuclear military power. Even if Iran did get the bomb, it would probably not use it for fear of Israel’s bigger, existing stockpile. And in the (admittedly improbable) event that Iran is telling the truth when it denies having any such ambition, nothing would change its mind faster than an Israeli strike.

However as it points out for Israel,the logical conclusion is not always the one followed

Given their history, a lot of Israelis will run almost any risk to prevent a state that calls repeatedly for their own state’s destruction from acquiring the wherewithal to bring that end about

Robin Lustig also takes a look at the logistics and concludes that

Israel bombs Iran. Iran retaliates. Its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza (Hizbollah and Hamas respectively) launch multiple rocket attacks into Israel.
But they do more. They order their allies in Iraq into action against US forces there. As a well-informed American friend said the other day: "Israel attacks Iran with US approval and Americans die? I don't think so."

and furthermore with Israel's Prime Minister in rather a precarious situation domestically at the moment would this be a viable option for the country