Tensions have been growing over recent days as reports emerged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak might be in the process of mobilizing support for an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites. But many pundits are viewing the reports with suspicion and suggest that the noise from Netanyahu’s cabinet might have more to do with mobilizing anti-Iran sentiment — and pushing for ever tougher sanctions — in anticipation of next week’s IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program.

The uptick in bomb-Iran chatter has led ex-Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy to call for Netanyahu’s government to temper their hawkish rhetoric. Ynet.com reports:

“The State of Israel cannot be destroyed,” he told Ynet on Friday. “An attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years.”

On Thursday, Halevy, speaking at an army boarding school reunion, pushed back at Netnayahu’s claims that Iran poses an “existential threat” to Israel, saying “[Iran is] far from posing an existential threat to Israel.” Halevi, as reported by Ynet, added that domestic radicalization “poses a bigger risk than Ahmadinejad.”

While Halevi’s outspoken comments about rightward tilts in Israel and his warnings against a unilateral attack on Iran have brought scorn from members of Netanyahu’s cabinet — indeed Political-Security Cabinet member and House and Construction Minister Ariel Atias characterized Halevy’s statements as “shocking and inciting and they divide the people of Israel at a time when it needs unity more than ever” — the former intelligence chief is not alone in his opposition to Netanyahu and Barak’s saber rattling.

In May, former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan called an Israeli strike on Iran “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

And twelve of the eighteen living former heads of the three Israeli security branches are actively opposing or have spoken out against Netanyahu’s aggressive gestures toward Iran.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) is an outspoken opponent of the Obama administration’s stimulus plan and toed the House Republican line that government spending doesn’t lead to job growth. But McKeon’s ideological commitment to a conservative fiscal policy has a major caveat — military spending. At a hearing last week, McKeon said:

We don’t spend money on defense to create jobs. But defense cuts are certainly a path to job loss, especially among our high-skilled workforces. There is no private sector alternative to compensate for the government’s investment. [...] While cuts to the military might reduce federal spending, they harm national security and they definitely don’t lead to job growth.

But McKeon’s apparent endorsement of government spending leading to job growth isn’t a position he typically takes. The “Issues” section of his congressional website states:

Congressional Democrats and the Administration continue to insist that we can spend our way out of this recession and create jobs, but the numbers just don’t add up. [...] Rather than spending money we don’t have for government programs, a job-killing government-run health care system, and a national energy tax, it’s time for policies that empower small businesses, restore consumer confidence, and create private-sector jobs.

The Associated Press asked McKeon about the apparent contradiction in his defense of military spending and opposition to federal spending to create jobs. McKeon spokesperson Claude Chafin told them:

[The statements] were “not inconsistent” becaues the defense industry is a unique recipient of federal dollars.

It actually turns out that McKeon is a unique recipient of defense industry dollars. Indeed, the House Armed Services Committee chairman’s sudden support of government led job creation when the defense budget is under attack should come as no great surprise. According to OpenSecrets.org, McKeon is the top Congressional recipient of defense industry campaign contributions, collecting over $250,000 from the industry in the 2011-2012 election cycle and over $1 million over the course of his career.

Appearing on CNN last night, Texas governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry expressed his religiously-inspired support for Israel to an extent few politicians or other presidential candidates have: unwavering support for Israel should it decide to start a war with Iran, even if that meant a region wide conflict.

CNN’s John King asked Perry about a recent Israeli long-range missile test and an upcoming International Atomic Energy Agency report that is expected to be critical of Iran’s nuclear program, which Western countries say is for making a weapon. Perry responded that he would support any Israeli action to prevent a nuclear armed Iran, including military, dismissing any potential fallout:

KING: If that report says Iran is progressing, moving closer to having a nuclear weapon, there’s a lot of talk in the region that Israel might take preemptive action. Would a President Perry say, “Go ahead, Mr. Prime Minister, green light that”?

PERRY: Obviously, we are going to support Israel, and I’ve said that we will support Israel in every way that we can, whether it’s diplomatic, whether it’s economic sanctions, whether it’s overt or covert operations up to and including military action. We cannot afford to allow that mad man in Iran to get his hands on nuclear weapons, period.

KING: Even if it started a war in the region?

PERRY: We cannot allow that mad man to get his hands on a nuclear weapon, because we know what he would do with it.

Watch the video:

CNN analyst David Gergen said Perry’s comment “goes far beyond what American political leaders have generally said.” In the past, Perry, an evangelical Christian, has said, “My faith requires me to support Israel.”

Top Israeli security officials have warned that an attack on Iran could set off regional conflagration.

Reports in the Israeli press set off a recent round of chatter about a potential strike, casting Israel’s powerful Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak as supporting an attack on Iran.