Mitt Romney’s oped in today’s Washington Post claimed — without offering any evidence — that Iran has a “nuclear-bomb program” and that the Islamic Republic is “racing to build a nuclear bomb.” Currently, U.S. intelligence and the IAEA do not believe either of these claims to be true.

But Romney’s disregard for the facts was noticed not just in Washington. Former Israeli Mossad director Efraim Halevy said that Romney’s militaristic talk could induce the Iranians to rush to acquire nuclear weapons in order to deter an attack if the former Massachusetts governor were to assume the presidency in January 2013. Halevy warned that Romney is effectively “telling the Iranians, ‘You better be quick about it,’” in an interview with the Huffington Post. Halevy explained:

If I’m sitting here in the month of March 2012 reading this, and I’m an Iranian leader, what do I understand? I have nine more months to run as fast as I can because this is going to be terrible if the other guys get in.

Halevy went on to observe, “In the effort to demolish the president [Romney] is making the situation worse.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said an attack would only delay Iran’s nuclear program and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey warned that military action “could carry unforeseen risks.”

The bellicose rhetoric of the campaign trail, which often incorporates accusations that Obama has been insufficiently protective of Israel’s security in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat, has stood in stark contrast to the messages coming out of Israel’s intelligence and security communities. Indeed, the IAEA has expressed concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but neither U.N. nuclear inspectors nor U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.

In February, former Israeli intelligence chief Meir Dagan disagreed with the characerization of Iran as an “existential threat” to Israel and current Israeli intelligence chief Tamir Pardo reportedly told a gathering of Israeli ambassadors in December that Iran doesn’t pose an “existential threat” and “the term existential threat is used too freely.”

Also in February, Israeli Lt. Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak reported that the Israeli military’s leadership doesn’t support a strike on Iran and the AP disclosed that Israel’s incoming air force chief Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel is “less enthusiastic about a possible attack on Iran” than the current air force chief, according to defense officials.

The White House also noticed Romney’s efforts to beat the war drums. Speaking today, Obama challenged Iran-hawks to “explain to the American people exactly why [we should launch a war] and what the consequences would be.” A growing number of defense and intelligence elites in Israel seem to think the costs of war with Iran far outweigh the consequences to the Jewish state.

Speaking before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference this morning, GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich promised that if elected president “we would not keep talking while the Iranians keep building.” Gingrich laid out his “red lines” — the term frequently used to describe the U.S. and/or Israel’s conditions for going to war with Iran — and indicated that Iran had already crossed the lines he would enforce as president.

Gingrich told the audience:

In a Gingrich administration we would not keep talking while the Iranians keep building. We would indicate clearly that their failure to stop their program is in fact crossing a red line. The red line is not the morning a bomb goes off. The red line is not the morning our intelligence community tells us they have failed once again. The red line is now because the Iranians now are deepening their fortifications, deepening their underground laboratories, deepening their commitment to nuclear weapons while we talk.

Watch him:

The former House speaker’s “red lines” suggest he is in favor of immediate military action and that the time for diplomacy has passed. But his characterization of Iran “deepening their commitment to nuclear weapons” completely disregards the intelligence reports from the IAEA and U.S. intelligence leadership.

In January, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director David Petraeus both endorsed the view that Iran has not yet decided whether to pursue a nuclear weapon. The IAEA has expressed concerns about possible military dimensions but has not concluded that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.

While Gingrich’s scare statements like “the red line is now” serve as a political prop as he attempts to set himself apart in the GOP primary field as the most hawkish candidate, his words may undermine U.S. efforts to deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. President Obama told an AIPAC audience on Sunday that “already there is too much loose talk of war” and warned “such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend on to fund their nuclear program.”

President Obama warned on Sunday in his speech at the AIPAC conference of the “loose talk of war” with Iran, which he said is only serving to benefit the regime in Tehran. But of course the bellicose rhetoric hasn’t subsided. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) just yesterday in his own speech to AIPAC threatened to introduce a resolution authorizing war with Iran.

Obama picked up on this theme during a White House press conference this afternoon, specifically targeting the Republican candidates for president. “Those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities,” he said, “And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs involved in war.” Obama also noted that, outside of the militaristic rhetoric, the GOP presidential contenders aren’t offering any different Iran policy than the one he has been pursuing. He added that if they want a war with Iran, they should say so and explain the consequences:

This is not a game, and there’s nothing casual about it. And, you know, when I see some of these folks who had a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk, but when you actually ask them, specifically, what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things that we’ve been doing over the last three years. It indicates to me that that’s more about politics than actually trying to solve a difficult problem.

Now, the one thing that we have not done, is we haven’t launched a war. If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so and they should explain to the american people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. Everything else is just talk.

“Typically it’s not the folks who are popping off who pay the price [of war],” Obama said, adding, “it’s these incredible men and women in uniform and their families who pay the price.” Watch the clip:

“It is my belief that we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically,” Obama said later. “That’s not just my view — that’s the view of our top intelligence officials, it’s the view of top Israeli intelligence officials.”

Indeed, there would be “a number of destabilizing” consequences to war with Iran, from sparking a regional war to providing incentive for the Iranian regime to weaponize its nuclear program. The IAEA and U.S. intelligence have warned that Iran may be on the path to a nuclear weapons capability but have said that the regime has not decided on whether to pursue a bomb.

During a question and answer session after Mitt Romney’s AIPAC speech this morning, the former Massachusetts governor was asked what his plans and ideas are for advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But Romney didn’t have any ideas and instead said peace should be put off because there’s too much going on in the Middle East:

Q: What are your plans, sir, to, or your ideas rather to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

ROMNEY: Boy that’s a tough one in these conditions of course because you have questions about whether a unity government is going to be formed between Fatah and Hamas and obviously if that were to occur that has a dramatic implications about the potential for discussions and negotiations. And then of course you have Egypt in tumult, Jordan feeling some fragility right now. You have Syria of course in tumult and I mean talking about a peace process right now is a bit like setting up a tent in the middle of a hurricane. So there has to be some settling down of a number of questions I think before the peace process is going to get its legs again.

Watch the clip:

Romney may want to wait on the peace process, but as Sarah Wildman reported for PBS last month, Jerusalem territorial expert Daniel Seidemann said the window of opportunity for implementing the two-state solution is closing rapidly:

Settlement activity, Seidemann said, after a quiet and unheralded seven-month freeze that began in March 2009, has increased in the last 18 months to levels not seen since the 1970s. “While under current circumstances, the implementation of the two state solution in East Jerusalem is still, with difficulty, possible. Our projections indicate that this will not be the case by the end of 2013.”

Indeed, President Obama appears to recognize this reality. “I make no apologies for pursuing peace,” Obama said in his AIPAC speech on Sunday. “The reality that Israel faces — from shifting demographics, to emerging technologies, to an extremely difficult international environment — demands a resolution of this issue,” he said.

Speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on Sunday, President Obama warned that “already there is too much loose talk of war” and that “such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil.” But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), speaking at AIPAC yesterday evening, ignored those warnings when he threatened a congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iran. McConnell told the AIPAC audience:

MCCONNELL: All that’s been lacking until now is a clear declaratory policy. And if the administration is reluctant for some reason to articulate it, then Congress will attempt to do it for them. So tonight I make the following commitment in support of the policy I have proposed, and it is this: If at any time the intelligence community presents to Congress an assessment that Iran has begun to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels or has taken a decision to develop a nuclear weapon. [...]

I will consult with the president and joint congressional leadership and introduce before the Senate an authorization for the use of military force.

Watch the clip:

Congress has not voted on such a resolution since October 2002 when it passed a resolution giving President George W. Bush the authority to use military force to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and initiate the Iraq War.

While McConnell is endorsing an open discussion of military force against Iran, neither the president — as illustrated in his comments to AIPAC on Sunday — former military and intelligence leadership, nor the American public are at ease with the rush to military action.

The IAEA has expressed serious concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but neither U.N. nuclear agency nor U.S. intelligence reports have concluded that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program. Last week, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “our intelligence makes clear that [the Iranians] haven’t made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon.” Panetta said in January that Iran will need “about a year” to produce the nuclear weapon and about 2 to 3 years to “put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort.” But last November, Panetta also warned that using military force would only delay Iran’s nuclear progress.

The Republican candidates for president have attacked President Obama for apologizing to Afghanistan after U.S. troops desecrated Qurans at Bagram Air Base. Rick Santorum said “it shows weakness,” Mitt Romney said it’s “very difficult for the American people to countenance,” and Newt Gingrich called it “surrender.”

ABC’s Martha Raddatz asked Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, about the GOP criticism:

RADDATZ: Gen. John Allen is a passionate officer, who bristles at the criticism aimed at him and President Obama for apologizing for the burning of the Qurans

ALLEN: Why wouldn’t we? Why wouldn’t we? This is the central word of God for them. Why wouldn’t we? We didn’t do it on purpose. But we should apologize. And now we get on with the relationship.

Watch the report:

For a Republican field that is constantly charging that Obama is not listening to the generals, perhaps Romney, Gingrich and Santorum will take their own advice.