Om limited escalation – Chuck Freilich in Haaretz:

‘As the prospects for a renewed nuclear deal with Iran fade, at least for now, the international and Israeli media have been replete with reports of Israel’s inability to destroy the Iranian nuclear program and ostensible lack of a military option. Various experts, including former and current Israeli officials, have all opined.
By framing the issue as the ability or inability to achieve a "knockout blow," one that puts an end to Iran's nuclear program, these reports miss the point. That would probably not be Israel's objective.
Up until around 2010, probably earlier, this might have still been possible, but Iran now has the necessary knowledge to reconstitute the program after an attack and even the U.S. can no longer simply put an end to it by military means. A successful attack could aspire today, at most, to achieve a significant delay, and even that is probably something that only the U.S. could do.’

(…)

‘Most Western journalists today lack familiarity with military thinking and recoil from it instinctually, without the expertise necessary to analyze the ramifications of an application of force in a given situation. This is not to commend military action as the preferred option – it is not – but analyses such as these must be based on expertise in military affairs and deep familiarity with the specific country and situation in question.’

(…)

‘This is precisely the scenario for which Iran built Hezbollah’s mammoth arsenal of some 150,000 rockets, numerous UAVs (drones) and other advanced capabilities. Israel’s home front will face a level of destruction such as it has never experienced before and Israel may even find itself in a multi-front war, not only against Hezbollah, but Iran itself, Iranian-affiliated forces in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, Hamas and more.
There is no denying that Iran may also launch limited attacks against American allies in the region (e.g. the Saudis) and even against some American-affiliated targets, whether U.S. forces in the region, or a U.S. embassy or McDonald’s somewhere in the world, if only to make it look good. Iran, too, has a self-image to maintain and domestic opinion to assuage.’

(…)

‘There is, however, little reason to believe that things will go beyond this limited escalation. In a situation in which Iran is already embroiled in a nearly all-out conflict with Israel and in which the latter is likely to strike regime and other strategic targets in Iran itself, logic and experience strongly suggest that Iran would want to put a lid on things.’

Read the article here.

It all depends on your definition of limited escalation.

Some would say that everything below the level of nuclear weapons is limited escalation.

Also, it’s doubtable whether Iran’s nuclear program can be compared with the attempts of Iraq under Saddam and Syria to obtain nuclear weapons.

Chuck Freilich believes that if worse comes to worse the military option should be taken seriously ‘and let the pieces fall where they may’.

Iran might not be suicidal, but this thinking is a bit too frivolous. Of course, getting killed is for the unlucky ones. If you’re the one to die you might be a bit more prudent.

Let the pieces fall where they may be.
The cadavers will be remembered.