Words alone do not cause a war but they can be a deciding factor in ramping up the pressure to start one.

That is the case with Iran during the past few days, as a succession of politicians in the US and Israel added their voices to the "will they, won't they" debate about the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

The aim would be to prevent the development of a nuclear bomb at a time when Israeli intelligence reports suggest that Iranian scientists are on the cusp of doing just that.

Leading the charge has been Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta that the "time to resolve this issue peacefully is running out".

Another recent visitor, the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, also seemed to give the green light for action when he was in Jerusalem a fortnight ago.

The senator's words were aimed just as much at the Zionist lobby back home but they also underlined the reality of Washington's position.

No sooner had Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton touched down in Jerusalem in mid-July, she assured Netanyahu that the US would do everything in its power to prevent Iran producing a bomb. Her words provided ample evidence about the strength of the special relationship with Israel.

If those declarations were not enough to create a high-summer mood of bellicosity, the Iranians have also been cranking up the pressure.

Last Thursday, the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, below, stated that the way to beat the West was to stop exporting oil until sanctions were lifted. He then ended his announcement with the surprising claim that he had convened his "last war council", suggesting that an attack is on the horizon and that Iran should be ready to meet it.

While Khamenei's posture is not really surprising his suggested solution of shutting down oil supplies should give the West pause for thought at a time when the world's economy is in the doldrums.

Certainly, any attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz would invite a US naval response and that is the last thing that President Barack Obama wants to confront in the Middle East at the moment – witness his reluctance to become involved in the Syrian civil war.

So, what would an attack on Iran look like and what would it achieve?

Netanyahu has made it clear that it could be carried out by strike aircraft of the Israeli Defence Forces using intelligence provided by the CIA and US-supplied bunker-busting ordnance.

Israeli hawks argue any such attack will have to be carried out sooner rather than later – certainly before the Iranians have created an "immunity zone" for their facilities by reinforcing them from the possibility of aerial bombardment.

Hitting the targets will be the easy part but it would be difficult to ensure that all the facilities had been put out of action – some Israeli scientists have suggested that the uranium enrichment plants could be back in business within two years.

There are also serious doubts about the legitimacy of a unilateral attack on Iran. Russia and China will hardly stand aside and do nothing, especially at a time when they are unhappy about the imposition of stringent UN and EU sanctions on the country.

Then there is the matter of timing. Nothing is likely to happen during the heat of summer. The fighting within Syria is also a distraction as it contains the possibility of further regional fragmentation and instability.

But the main uncertainty is provided by the forthcoming US presidential election in November. Obama is unlikely to sanction an Israeli attack before then for the good reason it could affect his chance of re-election.

Everything points to the problem being parked until next spring at the earliest but that might not suit the hawks surrounding Netanyahu who fear the Iranians will press on with their weapons development before it is too late to stop them.

It may be just another outburst in the current war of words but amidst all the clamour, one voice was strangely overlooked, that of Ephraim Halevy, a former head of Israeli intelligence. "If I were Iranian," he said, "I would be very worried about the next 12 weeks."

His message was quite simple – bomb or be bombed – and when it comes to the defence of the Israeli homeland, there is usually no shortage of those prepared to listen.