Internal unrest caused by a much weaker Iranian rial and high prices changes the equation, he believes. In other words, he's saying, perhaps sanctions really are biting hard enough to matter. They never do enough to topple regimes.
Up to now, Netanyahu downplayed them. Now perhaps he has second thoughts. In June 2013, perhaps another Green Revolution may accompany the presidential election.
The 2009 one achieved nothing. It was made in America. Days of street protests and clashes followed. Regime change plans failed. Washington's fingerprints will be all over a repeat if intended. If so, expect no more success than before.
Iran's well versed in American tactics. It's prepared and ready to react. At the same time, ordinary Iranians are fed up with US imperialism and permanent regional wars. They're not about to roll over supportively for violent regime change.
They want nothing to do with US belligerence. They want to live free and choose their own leaders. They want no outside interference.
Throughout summer 2012, said Harel, headlines speculated on whether "Israel would attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the US elections"." Netanyahu's bluster suggested the possibility. Red lines, deadlines, and timelines dominated news reports.
Things seem less urgent now. Summer 2012 replicated 2010 and 2011. Bluster turned out being smoke and mirrors. "How close were we to really doing it this time," asked Harel?
Some observers thought it possible. More thoughtful ones knew otherwise. Rhetoric now proves them right - at least for the time being. Things can change fast. Post-November 6, anything is possible.
At the same time, internal Israeli opposition is significant. High-level past and current government, military, and intelligence officials strongly oppose war. It's true as well in America. Public opinion in both countries oppose it.
"Netanyahu hasn't abandoned the idea," said Harel. Months from now or sooner, expect it to resurface.
Harel, of course, omitted two vital considerations. Netanyahu wouldn't dare attack Iran or other nation without Washington's approval and support.
At the same time, it's well know, though not publicly admitted or discussed, that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful. The Islamic Republic poses no threat. Saying otherwise is cover for longstanding regime change plans.
One more thing. The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. Waging war on either country risks catastrophe. Doing it against both at the same time assures it.
Will policy makers in both countries weigh these considerations? Will they deter wars on either or both countries? Don't bet that sound policies will prevent madness. They haven't so often before.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Email address removed .
His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"