Former Pentagon Chief William Perry, who headed the U.S. body during a 1994 nuclear standoff with North Korea, said Thursday that Israel would not accept a nuclear Iran, regardless what the United States thinks about the matter.

“Iran is moving inexorably toward becoming a nuclear power, with ominous implications for the Middle East,” Perry said. “It seems clear that Israel will not sit by idle while Iran takes the final steps toward becoming a nuclear power.”

“President Obama will almost certainly face a serious crisis with Iran,” Perry went on to say. “Indeed, I believe the crisis point will be reached in his first year in office. So on the nuclear front, President Obama will face a daunting set of problems, none of which can be solved unilaterally.”

He believes that the situation is likely to escalate this year due to the progress the Iranians are making with regards to their nuclear program. Intelligence officials estimate it to be a matter of months rather than years before Iran produces the energy it needs for its first nuclear weapon. Other such weapons can then be produced rather quickly.

Perry’s words are well taken. There is simply no way for Israel to accept a nuclear Iran, if for no other reason than because its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, frequently speaks about the need to destroy Israel (with violence). Israel fears Iran and especially its extremist leaders too much to let it acquire nuclear weapons.

Not only would nuclear weapons enable Iran to take Israel down (in theory), they would also help the country formerly known as Persia become even more powerful and influential in the region than it already is. It would enable Iran to put pressure on neighboring countries and it could possibly use its nuclear threat to prevent Israel from taking on terrorist groups in, say, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Such a change in the balance of power in the region is clearly unacceptable from an Israeli perspective.

Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities will be less bad for Israel than allowing it to develop nuclear weapons. After all, Iranians tend to be highly nationalistic, which means that they will rally around their otherwise unpopular leaders when the country is attacked. It would also certainly increase anti-Israelism in the region, and it is nearly unimaginable that Iran would take such bombings laying down.

It is a major point of discussion; a clear risk assessment has to be made. Easy answers are not possible; the only question is which option is less bad.