I don't find any of this convincing, either side of the argument. What I find interesting it that there seems to now BE a public dispute over "who lost Iran", so to speak. And the bit about Bibi's diplomatic "logic" was sort of interesting too.Was Israel about to embark on a destructive war with Iran but was rescued from destruction only because of the resourcefulness and daring of senior officers in the IDF and the intelligence community, who blocked the irresponsible and unbridled adventurism of the prime minister and the defense minister?
This is the version that appears to be marketed by former Mossad head, Meir Dagan (publicly ), the former Chief of Staff, Gabi Ashkenazi (in "private conversations" and in briefings to trusted aides ). In their telling, they enlisted former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin, ex-Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, and President Shimon Peres, in order to foil the intentions of Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak to send the air force to bomb the nuclear installations in Iran. Such a strike would have resulted in a regional war, with thousands of missiles on Tel Aviv, economic paralysis, and a crisis in relations with the United States.
---
In case the diplomatic means, the technical problems and the international sanctions did not stop the Iranians, Netanyahu decided to back those up by presenting a military option. As he explained more than once in public, only a credible military option could validate sanctions and other "soft" measures.
In order to avoid the use of force, the enemy must be convinced that "all the options are on the table." Netanyahu and Barak, who shared his approach, had three goals:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-s-defense-chiefs-failed-in-deterring-iran-1.370165