NEW YORK, July 19: “Israel will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months”, asserted Benny Morris, a Professor at Ben Gurion University in Israel, in an op-ed article in the New York Times on Friday.

The author of a book on the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948 , Prof Morris says forebodingly: “the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear programme. “

“Because”, he contends “ if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb”.

Morris says that “ recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov 5 to Jan 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route, but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House).” The dates are just before President Bush leaves the White House on Jan 20 of next year.

While saying “It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that

both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate”, Morris stressed “ we know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilisation of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.

“But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian programme, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. “

A US intelligence report, released in December of last year, concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 and that the programme remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, stated that Tehran was likely to keep its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons”.

But Prof Morris in his assessment maintained that “every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian programme is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behaviour, if not in rhetoric.

Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.”

Prof Morris believes that it leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. “ Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defences, followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves.”

Mr Morris, in an ominous tone, says Iran’s leaders should give up the nuclear option.

“Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear programme. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities.

To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland. Some Iranians may believe that this is a worthwhile gamble if the prospect is Israel’s demise. But most Iranians probably don’t”.