Conventional wisdom among some circles in Washington is that the longer the United States keeps negotiating with Iran, the more likely Iran is to develop nuclear weapons.

A new book, War With Iran: Political, Military and Economic Consequences, suggests that the opposite is true and that the negotiating process, with all its frustrations, could “produce a net delay comparable to that caused by a physical attack.”

This counterintuitive comment is among the book’s conclusions about the potential consequences of a US or Israeli military attack on Iran. While striking Iran’s known nuclear sites is a “viable short-term counter-proliferation strategy,” authors Geoffrey Kemp and John Allen Gay point out that Iran may have hidden key elements of its program, in which case a strike “would do nothing but ensure that it becomes a nuclear power — and an angry, vengeful one at that.”

Iran would likely retaliate with “pinprick” attacks on the US and its allies, oil prices would spike and the tight sanctions regime so carefully constructed by the United States could collapse, they say.