The International Atomic Energy Agency, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have all recently said that while they believe Iran may be moving toward a nuclear weapons capability, the regime has not made a decision to build a bomb. President Obama said just today that “ultimately the Iranians’ regime has to make a decision to move in that direction, a decision that they have not made thus far.”

Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton recently highlighted this distinction of fact between Iran’s nuclear program (which the country admittedly has) and its alleged nuclear weapons program and cautioned against “getting ahead of the facts.” “The IAEA report does not say Iran has a bomb, nor does it say it is building one,” he wrote, adding that news outlets stating that Iran is building a nuclear weapon is “misleading.”

But it seems that Pexton’s direction doesn’t extend to the Post’s op-ed pages. GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed published this afternoon on the newspaper’s website attacking Obama’s Iran policy (while at the same time calling for all of what Obama is already doing) and referred to Iran wanting to build a nuclear weapon three times:

America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake. The same Islamic fanatics who took our diplomats hostage are racing to build a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama, America’s most feckless president since Carter, has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets in the White House, the Iranians are making rapid progress toward obtaining the most destructive weapons in the history of the world. [...]

Until Iran ceases its nuclear-bomb program, I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must.

Sticking to the facts about Iran or Obama’s policy toward the Islamic Republic isn’t exactly Mitt Romney’s strong suit. Just this weekend, the former Massachusetts governor was caught falsely claiming Obama “failed to communicate that military options are on the table” regarding Iran’s nuclear program and that Obama never said “it’s unacceptable to America for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” (Obama has, in fact, communicated both sentiments.)

But the Washington Post should know better, particularly in light of Pexton’s recent plea, than to allow Romney to get away with unverifiable claims about Iran’s nuclear program that, as Pexton said, “play into the hands of those who are seeking further confrontation with Iran.”

Questions about U.S. and Israeli policy towards Iran are leading the agenda at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference in Washington this week. But while hawks on Capitol Hill and GOP presidential contenders are quick to engage in calls for military action against Iran, the American public doesn’t seem to be convinced that such action is necessary or prudent.

A new poll [PDF] by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal finds that — in a hypothetical situation in which Iran is close to developing a nuclear weapon — Americans favor military action over inaction by a majority of 52 percent to 40 percent when asked to choose between the two options. Since December, the percentage of Americans in favor of military action has dropped from 54 percent to 52 percent.

But when presented with a range of policy options to choose from if Iran “is close to developing a nuclear weapon,” the results are somewhat different: more Americans favor diplomacy and sanctions over military action. A total of 49 percent said the U.S. should either “take no action unless Iran attacks the U.S. or its allies” (17 percent) or “take stronger diplomatic and economic action to put pressure on Iran but should take no military action” (32 percent).

By contrast, 47 percent supported some type of military action but only 21 percent said the U.S. should “take direct military action to destroy Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon” (top U.S. officials have questioned whether an attack would “destroy” Iran’s ability to develop a weapon). And 26 percent said the U.S. should not take military action but should support an Israeli attack.

The poll’s results appear to show that American public opinion is increasingly uncomfortable with the possibility of military action against Iran and supports the White House’s efforts to deter Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon through diplomacy and sanctions.

While the IAEA has expressed serious concerns about a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program, U.S. military and intelligence officials have echoed the IAEA’s findings that Iran has not yet restarted its nuclear weapons program. Both Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey have expressed confidence in the U.S. strategy of diplomacy and sanctions. But while Congressional hawks and GOP presidential candidates are eager to paint the Obama administration’s strategy as insufficiently aggressive, the NBC and WSJ poll shows that the American public isn’t ready to give up on a diplomatic strategy just yet.

Today during a Oval Office press briefing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama said the two leaders “prefer” to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis “diplomatically.” But the two men have not always seens eye-to-eye on how to confront Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Netanyahu has openly rejected efforts to diplomatically deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon while Obama, speaking at the AIPAC conference on Sunday, warned that “loose talk of war” is benefiting the Iranian government.

But a full page Washington Post ad taken out by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) — and signed by eight retired, high ranking, military and intelligence officials — urges Obama to continue exploring diplomatic paths and resist the push for war with Iran. The ad reads:

Unless we or an ally is attacked, war should be the option of last resort. Our brave servicemen and women expect you to exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful options before you send them into harm’s way.

Preventing a nuclear armed Iran is rightfully your priority and red line. Fortunately, diplomacy had not been exhausted and peaceful solutions are still possible.

While Obama reiterated in his speech to AIPAC yesterday that he “will take no options off the table” in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, GOP presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have blasted Obama as insufficiently hawkish on Iran.

In their testimony before Congress, American intelligence and military leadership consistently make the case that Iran has not yet decided to pursue a nuclear weapon and diplomacy and sanctions can still work to deter Iran from restarting its nuclear weapons program. The IAEA has repeatedly expressed concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but has not concluded that Tehran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.

Signatories of the NIAC letter — which include five retired Generals — urge Obama to “resist the pressure for a war of choice with Iran.”

Indeed, George W. Bush’s CIA director issued an even more stark warning. In January, former CIA director and NSA chief Gen. Michael Hayden told Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin that the Bush administration had carefully examined the possibility of bombing Iran and concluded that “[attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon.”

Last month, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), in an impassioned speech on the House floor, observed that it’s “impossible to not hear the drumbeat of war with Iran.” Ellison added that “pundits discuss the possibility with shocking casualness, and I am alarmed by this.” Indeed, various reporters have picked up on the point that, as the New York Times recently observed, the media landscape “leading up to the Iraq war in 2003 [is] unmistakable” from the current talk of war with Iran.

An op-ed from Mike Huckabee in today’s USA Today is no exception. It joins the right-wing campaign disparaging America’s top military officer for his belief that Iran is a “rational actor,” promotes the military option against Iran’s nuclear program and concludes, “We must act soon or face the withering verdict of history.” To its credit however, USA Today’s editorial team offered a counterpoint with a piece titled “Iran war draws close with little informed debate.” “What’s remarkable,” USA Today writes, “is that war [with Iran] is drawing so close with so little public discussion of the consequences”:

In the presidential debates, particularly, the discussion has seemed superficial or disingenuous — as if an attack would amount to little more than target practice: Go in. Drop bombs. Destroy Iran’s program forever. Fly home. End of story. But you’d be hard pressed to find a military or intelligence analyst who trusts in that scenario. [...]

Another misconception drawn from the glib political debate is that an attack would end Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, the program would be set back, probably by a few years, and clandestinely reconstituted. …[N]one of this is to say that an attack should be ruled out. Concerns about a nuclear Iran are also valid. But given the stakes, Obama is right, as he said Sunday, to speak softly and carry a big stick.

As the USA Today editorial notes, former Defense secretary Robert Gates said recently that “those who say we shouldn’t attack, I think, underestimate the consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And those who say we should underestimate the consequences of going to war.”

“If a war starts before the public resolves that dilemma,” USA Today writes, “the outcome is not likely to be pretty.”

The IAEA reiterated today that it has serious concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program, with IAEA chief Yukiya Amano reporting that Iran has tripled its monthly production of higher-grade enriched uranium. However, neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence reports have asserted that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.