Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with President Obama next week and Iran will most likely “dominate the conversation” as the New York Times noted. While the President made a strong case for diplomacy in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program during an recent interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Netanyahu warned against talks.

On Fox News, Greta Van Susteren asked GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich how he’d handle the meeting with the Israeli prime minister. While Gingrich said he would brief Netanyahu on all the “non-military means” he would employ to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, he added that Israel “would receive support from the United States” if it decided to attack Iran. But the former House Speaker didn’t stop there:

GINGRICH: I would also point out that a Gingrich presidency would communicate publicly to the Iranians that if they continue to do what they’re doing, they should expect to get hit, and it will be their fault for having caused it.

Watch it:

The GOP presidential candidates have been steadily trying to outdo one another on who is more bellicose on Iran and Gingrich is no exception. Outside of offering support for an Israeli attack on Iran, Gingrich said in December that he would prefer a “joint operation” with the United States.

While the IAEA and top U.S. officials have expressed serious concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program — including indications that Iran is on a path to nuclear weapons capability — neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence reports have asserted that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.

The GOP presidential presidential primary candidates and right-wing pressure groups are working hard to cast President Obama as a weak ally to Israel. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have all challenged Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security. Today, the fringe right-wing Emergency Committee for Israel launched a bus-stop ad campaign asking: “[Obama] says a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Do you believe him? Do they?” above a picture of Ayatollah Khamanei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But while the far-right attacks Obama’s pro-Israel credentials, their sentiments aren’t shared by Israeli President Shimon Peres. Last night, Peres told Charlie Rose that Obama “is a great president and a great friend of Israel,” during an event at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan. Security cooperation between the U.S. and Israel is “the best we’ve ever had,” said Peres.

And in an interview on Wednesday with The View’s Barbara Walters, Peres emphasized that “relations with Obama are in good shape. We have the highest respect for the president.” He went on to emphasize Obama’s security guarantees for the Jewish state:

PERES: The most important issue for Israel is our security. I think under President Obama we have the best relationship on the issue of security. Never were the security [...] needs better met than today under president Obama. This is a fact.

Watch the clip:

Indeed, as Peres indicates, Obama has been a firm ally of Israel and upheld security guarantees, but tensions in how to confront Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program is a source of tension. While the Obama administration has committed to pursuing a diplomatic track to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netnanyahu characterized diplomatic outreach to Iran as a “trap,” in comments to the media in Ottawa. In an interview published today, Obama said that “all options are on the table” but emphasized that Iran can be deterred from pursuing nuclear weapons through diplomacy and sanctions.

Right-wing hawks have been incensed since Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria last month that Iran is a “rational actor.” Dempsey and Obama administration officials have faced increasing hostility from the right for their views, backed by IAEA reports and U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, that sanctions and diplomacy are effective tools in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In fact, the Joint Chiefs chairman, when pressed by Republicans in separate Senate and House hearings this week, stood by his claim that Iran makes cost-benefit calculations.

In an interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg published today, President Obama said that it is “unacceptable” for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and said that he would authorize military force if necessary to prevent that. “I don’t bluff,” Obama said.

The President also noted that the diplomatic and sanctions tracks have been effective. “We have a sanctions architecture that is far more effective than anybody anticipated,” he said, adding that the United States wanted to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis “permanently.” “They are self-interested,” Obama said of the Iranian leadership, and later backed Dempsey’s assessment:

OBAMA: [O]ur argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily. And the only way, historically, that a country has ultimately decided not to get nuclear weapons without constant military intervention has been when they themselves take [nuclear weapons] off the table. That’s what happened in Libya, that’s what happened in South Africa. And we think that, without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions, without in any way being naive about the nature of that regime, they are self-interested. [...]

GOLDBERG: Last week, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. referred to the Iranian leadership as “rational.” Where do you fall on this continuum? Do you feel that the leaders of Iran might be so irrational that they will not act in what we would understand to be their self-interest? … Do you think they [the Iranian leaders] are messianic?

OBAMA: I think it’s entirely legitimate to say that this is a regime that does not share our worldview or our values. I do think, and this is what General Dempsey was probably referring to, that as we look at how they operate and the decisions they’ve made over the past three decades, that they care about the regime’s survival. … They are able to make decisions based on trying to avoid bad outcomes from their perspective.

It’s unclear what Obama meant by a “temporary” solution to resolving the Iran nuclear impasse. However, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in November that using military force would only delay Iran’s nuclear progress. When asked if he agreed with his predecessor’s evaluation that “bombing would at most delay that program or derail it up to two or three years at most,” Panetta responded: “I see no change in the assessments.”

While the IAEA has expressed serious concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program, neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence reports have asserted that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) have been leading the charge on Capitol Hill trying to repeal the nearly $600 billion in military and security spending cuts that are mandated to take effect because the super committee has failed to reach an agreement on how to cut $1.2 trillion in federal spending.

But House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith (D-WA) offered an easy solution to Republicans refusing to trim any more fat from the military’s bloated budget: let the Bush tax cuts expire. Smith noted the revenue generated from the elimination of those tax cuts would more than cover the $1.2 trillion in cuts Congress needs to find, DEFCON Hill reports:

He charged that if Republicans vote to extend all of the tax rates without changing sequestration, they would then be supporting keeping sequestration in place, because the revenues from the expiring tax rates could undo sequestration.

“The vote to extend the Bush tax cuts in their entirety would, in essence, be the vote to lock in sequestration,” Smith said at a roundtable with reporters. “That will be interesting.”

As the Hill notes: “The reason the Bush-era tax rates and sequestration are interlinked is all about timing: The rates expire at the end of 2012, while sequestration goes into effect on Jan. 2, 2013.”