A growing number of current and former Israeli officials are voicing concern that attacking Iran may prove counterproductive in deterring Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. Last week, former Israeli internal security chief Yuval Diskin warned that attacking Iran may “encourage them to develop a bomb.”

In an interview on Tuesday, former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence head Shlomo Gazit joined the chorus warning against attacking Iran. Gazit agreed with Diskin that attacking Iran would not destroy Iran’s nuclear program, and could even accelerate it, the Jerusalem Post reports:

The public discourse over a strike largely neglected the likelihood that Iran would resume its program after being attacked, Gazit noted.

He said he agreed with Diskin that an Israeli attack would not destroy the program, and could even accelerate it, while enabling Iran to legitimize its efforts diplomatically.

Diskin raised eyebrows last week when he slammed Barak and Netanyahu as “our two messiahs” and charged:

[Israel's leadership] presents a false view to the public on the Iranian bomb, as though acting against Iran would prevent a nuclear bomb. But attacking Iran will encourage them to develop a bomb all the faster.

But Gazit urged those who agree with Diskin’s assessment to direct their criticisms to the electorate:

Even if they have messianic considerations, this is not important. They were legally elected through a ballot, and Diskin should direct his claims [against them] to the electorate.

In New York on Friday, former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan backed up Diskin’s criticisms, telling the Jerusalem Post that Diskin was speaking his “internal truth” and characterized him as a good friend and serious person.

Sources “close to the prime minister” told the Jerusalem Post that Diskin’s attacks were “irresponsible” and “motivated by personal frustration that he wasn’t chosen to lead the Mossad.” But another former head of Israel’s internal security service, and current member of the Knesset, Yoel Hasson, was reported by the Jerusalem Post as warning that Netanyahu should be concerned about the criticms he is facing from former heads of the security establishment, such as Diskin, Dagan and Gabi Ashkenazi.

While a potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime, those estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Like their Israeli counterparts, American officials including President Obama vow to keep “all options on the table” to deal with the Iranian nuclear program, but questions about the efficacy and consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the West’s crisis with Iran.

The former head of Israel’s internal security service Shin Bet reportedly lacks faith in Israel’s leadership and worries that attacking Iran’s nuclear program may spur the Islamic Republic to acquire a nuclear weapon, according to Army Radio. Yuval Diskin made the comments to the Majdi Forum in Israel on Friday night.

According to the Jerusalem Post (with slightly differing translations from Yedioth Ahronoth), Diskin referred to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense chief Ehud Barak as “our two messiahs,” going on to lambast the country’s leadership:

(T)hey are not fit to hold the steering-wheel of power. I have no faith in the current leadership in Israel and its ability to conduct a war. …

[Israel's leadership] presents a false view to the public on the Iranian bomb, as though acting against Iran would prevent a nuclear bomb. But attacking Iran will encourage them to develop a bomb all the faster.

While a potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime, serious questions remain about the efficacy of strike — like Diskin’s — and its potential consequences. Leaving “all options on the table” to deal with the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapons push — one that neither American nor Israeli intelligence think Iran has decided on — the Obama administration, for the meantime, has pursued a dual-track of pressure and diplomacy aimed at yielding a negotiated resolution to the crisis.

Diskin’s not alone in his assessments — other analysts think attacking now could very well convince the Iranian leadership that they need a weapon for deterrence. The former Shin Bet chief is also joined by a bevy of other current and former top-ranking Israeli security officials. At the Huffington Post, Joel Rubin, the Director of Policy and Government Affairs at the Ploughshares Fund, offers a rundown:

In one of the most astounding public breaks by the Israeli national security establishment with a sitting prime minister, Netanyahu’s own military Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz has stated that Iran’s leadership is rational. Gantz is not alone.

In the past several months, as Netanyahu has ramped up his rhetoric on Iran, senior Israeli national security leaders from the military and intelligence communities have pushed back. In addition to Gantz, the current head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency Tamir Pardo has stated that Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel. And many more retired military and intelligence leaders echo the same sentiment.

After Gantz’s public comments, Barak made a speech restating a harder Israeli line and adding that “chance(s) appears to be low” for a breakthrough during the upcoming talks between Iran and Western powers in late May. (HT: Ori Nir)

Discussions surrounding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons ambitions frequently cross the line into unsubstantiated assertions about Iran’s nuclear intentions and capabilities. But in an interview with Haaretz, Israel’s chief military officer offered a more nuanced view of Iran’s nuclear program.

Lieutenant General Benny Gantz told Haaretz that Iran has not yet made critical decisions:

[Iran] is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn’t yet decided whether to go the extra mile.

Gantz also emphasized that Iran is a rational actor, a departure from hawks who claim that Iran’s leadership is irrational:

[The acquisition of a nuclear bomb] will happen if [Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don’t think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous.

The Israeli military chief said that all options — including the military one — remain on the table for Israel and that “This is a critical year, but not necessarily ‘go, no-go.’” And he reported that diplomatic presure and economic sanctions are begining to bear fruit.

Gantz’s comments contrast with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hawkish rhetoric on Iran. In an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett last night, Netanyahu questioned Iran’s rationality:

I don’t think you want to bet the peace in the Middle East and the security of the world on Iran’s rational behavior.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime. While hawkish rhetoric towards Iran is becoming a normal occurrence in the political discourses in both Israel and the U.S., neither IAEA, Israeli nor U.S. intelligence estimates conclude that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration has vowed to keep “all options on the table” to deal with the possibility of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon but the efficacy and consequences of such a military strike continue to raise serious questions.

Holocaust survivor, author and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel rejected all Holocaust comparisons in modern politics.

In his interview with the Hebrew paper Globes and partially translated by the Times of Israel, Wiesel said nothing compares to the Holocaust. Asked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s frequent allusions to the Holocaust when talking about Iran, Wiesel responded:

Iran is a threat, but can we say that it will make a second Auschwitz? I don’t compare anything to the Holocaust. …

Only Auschwitz was Auschwitz.

The Times of Israel paraphrased Wiesel as saying that “he did not approve of the frequency with which comparisons with the Nazis were made” and noting that not all genocides are like the Holocaust and such comparisons, “aside from being inaccurate, only belittle the Holocaust itself.”

Yesterday, at Israel’s Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem to commemorate the Holocaust, Netanyahu brought up Iran and criticisms of his frequent comparisons between Iran and the Nazi-led genocide. He said:

Remembering the Holocaust is not merely a matter of ceremony or historic memory. Remembering the Holocaust is imperative for learning the lessons of the past in order to ensure the foundations of the future….

I know that some people don’t appreciate me speaking such uncomfortable truths. They would rather we not talk about Iran as a nuclear threat, they claim that, though it may be true, this statement serves to sow panic and fear.

Israeli President Shimon Peres also made a similar comparison at the ceremony:

Humanity has no choice, it must learn the lessons of the Holocaust and stand up to existential threats before it is too late. Iran is at the center of this threat, it is the center of terror. It poses a threat to world peace.

Given what is indeed Iran’s record of supporting designated terror groups, a potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime — though U.S. and Israeli intelligence has not concluded that Iran has made a decision to pursue a weapon. The Obama administration vows to keep “all options on the table” to deal with the possibility, but the efficacy and consequences of a strike raise serious questions, leading the U.S. to pursue, for the meantime, a pressure track aimed at a negotiated resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis.

But that potential threat hasn’t stopped even Israelis — the subject of the Iranian regime’s heated rhetorical attacks who feel the threat acutely — from criticizing the Holocaust comparison. The Associated Press reported last month that many Israelis say the Holocaust imagery when discussing the Iranian theat cheapens its memory and unnecessarily escalates tensions, particularly when President Obama is urging restraint. Former opposition leader Tzipi Livni called Holocaust imagery when referring to the Iranian threat “hysterical.” Dan Halutz, a former Israeli military chief, said the Holocaust comparison was “out of place.” Retired Israeli brigadier general Shlomo Brom, citing Holocaust comparisons, said last month in Washington that the Iran debate was “plagued with emotion.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staked out a hawkish position on Iran. The PM has warned that world-powers who just completed a round of nuclear negotiations with Iran in Istanbul could be falling into “a trap” if they continue to pursue diplomacy with Tehran.

But while both Obama and Netanyahu have kept all options — including the military one — on the table, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor publicly warned today that an attack on Iran could prove damaging to Israeli security interests. Meridor spoke with Metro International’s Elisabeth Braw at the Israeli embassy in London:

ELISABETH BRAW: What about ending it with a military strike?

DAN MERIDOR: That option was recently mentioned by President Obama in a positive way. He said he ruled in this possibility. It’s possible that we have to use force. All this pressure should persuade Iran to end its nuclear program. But I don’t think Israel should use the military option. I don’t agree with some of my colleagues who support a military strike. An attack on Iran wouldn’t add anything to our security.

The Deputy PM’s views closely match those expressed by former Israeli spy agency Chief Meir Dagan last month. Dagan warned that bombing Iran would “ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war,” and that no military attack would be able to permanently halt the Iranian nuclear project. The opinion that military action won’t be able to stop Iran’s nuclear program is shared by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Meridor went on to emphasize that a military strike on Iran would be nothing like the Six-Day War, a comparison occasionally floated by Iran hawks, and emphasized that Iran might be persuaded, through rational self-interest, to accept a diplomatic solution to the standoff over their nuclear program:

In the past, at least once or twice, the Iranians took to reason. For example, when [Ayatollah] Khomeini stopped the war with Iraq, he did so with a very illuminating statement that hade nothing to do with God but with a practical approach: “we can’t afford this war.” I hope the Iranians will engage in this kind of thinking again.

Top U.S. officials and the IAEA agree that Iran is making progress on its nuclear capabilities and warn that some of their activities may have a military dimension. But the IAEA, U.S. and Israeli intelligence agree that Iran has not yet made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon.

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.”