According to the article General Eiland was referring to a purported plan scheduled in September 2012. Since then the strategic reality has changed. No one more than the Israelis themselves recognize the dilemma they face. Unless Assad is overthrown and the Iranians are forced out of Syria, an Israeli attack on Iran is not feasible. Also even if Assad is removed, The United States would probably still oppose an Israeli attack since it would be very difficult to defend the Navy ships in the narrow Persian Gulf. Also Israel would remain somewhat vulnerable to ballistic missiles launched from Iran, but “Iron Dome” would be more effective against those long range missiles. They could not defend however from short range modern missiles launched from Syria or Lebanon. Very difficult time in the Mideast with no easy solutions. However while Iran may have won this round, the Israeli are intelligent, innovative and resilient. There will be more to come.
Here's another link for you with more detail showing that your thesis is wrong -
Since the cancellation of the planned Irans nuclear program has continued to progress. Today, argues Eiland, Israel again faces a difficult choice. Time has passed and we stand before exactly the same decision, with less time. He added, The lack of resolution is dramatic.