Israel Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon on Monday made clear that he believes that any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program should be only be considered as a last resort, the latest signal that Israel is moving closer to the United States’ views on how to handle Iran.

Yaalon’s proclamation came during U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s visit to the Middle East this weekend, including his first visit to Israel since his conformation. Hagel traveled to the region in part to finalize an arms deal worth $10 billion, split between the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Speaking to reporters, Hagel said, “I don’t think there’s any question that [the deal is] another very clear signal to Iran.”

Yaalon agreed with the Obama administration’s policy that the “military option” remains on the table for confronting Iran, saying “one way or another Iran’s nuclear program will be stopped.” He also emphasized, however, the importance of such a move only coming should all others fail:

“We believe that the military option, which is well discussed, should be the last resort,” Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon told reporters at a news conference with Hagel.

“And there are other tools to be used and to be exhausted,” Yaalon said, listing diplomacy, economic sanctions and “moral support” for domestic opponents of Iran’s hardline Islamist leadership.

In a profile published at the time of his appointment, Reuters highlighted Yaalon’s preference for Israel to follow a cautious approach when determining how to handle Iran, a stance he appears to have brought with him into the Defense Ministry. Yaalon was also listed among the members of Netanyahu’s previous cabinet opposed to launching strikes on Iran in 2011, according to Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

Yaalon’s appointment as Defense Minister, given his previous positions on Iran, highlights the shift in Israeli rhetoric in recent months. Following Netanyahu’s so-called “Red Line” speech at the United Nations in October, the drumbeats for war have receded at least slightly. Israeli officials, particularly Netanyahu, have cooled their rhetoric due, in part it seems, to Iran’s continued conversion of its enriched uranium into a form harder to enrich further. But also, as his most recent trip to Israel showed, President Obama has largely succeeded in moving Netanyahu closer to his thinking on Iran since October. “I think there was a policy shift from Netanyahu,” CAP’s Matt Duss said on MSNBC last month, adding that “it’s Netanyahu really climbing down” to Obama’s position.

As Yaalon indicated, all options regarding Iran have yet to be exhausted. Iran on Monday announced it is seeking a new round of talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency over its nuclear program, tentatively scheduled to take place in May. A recent report from The Iran Project also emphasized that there is much the international community can still do to engage Iran diplomatically to end the stand-off over its nuclear program.

Members of Congress have been intensifying their Iran-war rhetoric in recent days. For example, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) are planning to introduce a resolution that urges the United States government to support Israel — militarily, economically and diplomatically — should the Jewish state be “compelled to take military action” against Iran.

While it appears that Congress, still struggling to shake the neocons’ influence, tends to favor a more militaristic approach toward the Islamic Republic, the Obama administration has focused on a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis, while pledging to take no options off the table and also warning about what war with Iran would look like.

But given now the Graham-Menendez resolution, what do the Israelis think about war with Iran? It’s no secret the current Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu is the most vocal about pushing a military option with Iran, but over the past two years, numerous former and current high-level members of Israel’s security establishment have pushed back. Below is a compilation of those statements:

Read more

A new poll by an Israeli newspaper has found that the majority of those surveyed support the creation of a Palestinian state but remain unconvinced that one is likely to come into existence.

Conducted by Israel Hayom, the poll asked 800 Israeli citizens whether they “support or oppose the idea of two states for two peoples, i.e. the creation of a Palestinian state independent from Israel.” Fifty-four percent of respondents were in favor of a Palestinian state, with only 38 percent opposed. The result in favor is down slightly from a survey published in December by Smith Research, which found that 62 percent of Israelis supported a two-state solution at the time.

Likewise, the new poll shows both concerns about the likelihood of a Palestinian state ever coming about and ambivalence towards the ever-expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank. In the case of the former, 54 percent of those polled believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is impossible. Support for settlements were almost exactly split in half, with 43 percent opposed and 43 percent in favor.

The split in the poll results may reflect the changing tone of Israeli politics. With a general election for the Knesset scheduled to take place in just a few weeks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Beitenu party remains set to take the plurality of seats in the new session. Right-wing parties are also due to hold the majority of seats over center and left-wing groups like the Labor and Liberal parties.

However, due to the coalition-making that is an ingrained part of Israeli political culture, Netanyahu may find himself pushed even further to the right on the issue of the West Bank. According to pre-election polling, pro-settlement party Jewish Home alone is poised to increase their allotment of the 120 seats in the Knesset from 3 to 14. Netanyahu’s Cabinet has already signed off on several controversial expansions of West Bank settlements, including the E1 section of the territory that may make a contiguous territory within the West Bank impossible for Palestine.

Furthering that trend would position Netanyahu and his future Cabinet for further scorn and condemnation from his allies around the world. The settlements also remain illegal in the eyes of international law and an obstacle in the path to a lasting peace deal, rendering the uncertainty of those surveyed valid.

A former head of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, has leveled harsh criticism at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak for their determination to take Israel to war with Iran.

Yuval Diskin in an interview published in Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Friday expressed severe doubt in the ability of Israel’s current leadership to be able to successfully wage a campaign against Iran. “We didn’t trust their motives,” Diskin said, speaking for his colleagues dealing in Israel’s security. “We were worried that they might pursue various moves that would compromise Israel based on irrelevant considerations or via underhanded ways.” Among the evidence for concern Diskin recounted were tales of high-level security meetings accompanied with alcohol and cigars.

Diskin said that Netanyahu tried to convince Israel’s security chiefs to approve what he called an “illegal” decision to attack Iran, a policy that, according to Diskin, remains at the forefront of Netanyahu’s agenda, at the expense of other priorities:

“I have a very deep feeling that when it comes to Iran, Netanyahu is possessed by Menachem Begin, who attacked Iraq’s nuclear reactor, and by [Former Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert, who many claim is responsible for the attack on Syria’s reactor. Bibi wants to go down in history as the person who did something on this size a scale. I have heard him belittle what his predecessors have done and assert that his mission on Iran is on a much grander scale.“

Netanyahu and Barak have since backed away slightly from their rhetoric about the danger Iran poses. Barak in October stated that since Iran had converted a large amount of its enriched uranium stockpile into a form unable to be further enriched that an Israeli strike was no longer immediately forthcoming. Likewise, on Thursday Netanyahu declared that Iran had yet to cross the “red-line” that he had set that would prompt an Israeli attack.

The Office of the Prime Minister provided a statement to Yedioth Ahronoth in reaction to the interview, saying “Diskin’s ridiculous statements, made by a man who until six months ago wanted to be head of the Mossad, are recycled at this time for political reasons and stem from his own frustration about not being named to head the Mossad.” Israel is currently only weeks away from an election in which Netanyahu’s Likud Betinyahu party is in danger of losing seats to even parties even further to the right.

Diskin is the latest in a string of current and former Israeli officials who have warned about the possibility of Israel striking Iran’s nuclear program unilaterally. While their reasoning varies, including the fact that an attack may galvanize an uncertain Iran into accelerating its program and that diplomacy stands the best chance of resolving the issue, all appear convinced that striking Iran now would be disastrous for Israel.

In 2010, two top Israeli security chiefs denied Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s request to “have the military ready to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities within hours if necessary.” This new information comes from an Israeli TV documentary airing today that cites sources close to Israel’s former intelligence head Meir Dagan and the Israeli army chief Gabi Ashkenazi as shooting down the order.

The request, delivered to the top seven security officials but not to the full security cabinet, angered Dagan and Ashkenazi, leading Dagan to reportedly say that Netanyahu and Barak “tried to steal a war –- it was as simple as that.” To Dagan, the meeting betrayed standard protocol for launching a war. “You may end up going to war based on an illegal decision. Only the security cabinet is authorized to make such a decision,” he said.

Both Dagan and Askhenazi left their roles shortly after the reported meeting. Ashkenazi reportedly said of the order, “This isn’t the sort of thing that you do unless you’re certain that you’ll end up launching an operation. It’s like an accordion that makes music even if it is merely handled.”

The documentary also contains an interview with Barak who all but confirms the reporting. “A chief of staff must create the operational ability, he needs to tell us [the government] whether we have the operational ability to do something, and he even needs to give his recommendation, but [the government] is free to choose [a course of action] that contradicts his recommendation,” Barak told film’s director Ilana Dayan.

Dagan and Ashkenazi have both repeatedly warned about the consequences of rushing to war with Iran. Dagan said in May that “a strike could accelerate the procurement of the bomb. An attack isn’t enough to stop the project.” He added that, “we would provide them with the legitimacy to achieve nuclear capabilities for military purposes.” Ashkenazi said in August that “there is a sense that someone will pull out a suitcase from some shelf tomorrow morning and we’ll find ourselves with an Iranian atom bomb. I think we’re not at that point yet.”

Last week, Barak told the British newspaper, the Telegraph, that Iran stepped back from pursuing a nuclear weapon this summer, allowing Israel to contemplate “delaying the moment of truth by eight to 10 months.” Barak added that he was “skeptical” that the sanctions implemented by the Obama administration and its European allies would convince the Iranians to “sit together at any point in the foreseeable future and decide to give up their intention to go in the footsteps of Pakistan and North Korea and turn into a military nuclear power.” In the past, the Israeli Defense Minister has said that sanctions implemented by the Obama administration and its European allies were “quite effective.”

Several former high-level Israeli intelligence and military officials pushed back against a rush to war with Iran. Most recently, Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, praised the Obama administration for pushing a diplomatic approach, saying: “Obama does think there is still room for negotiations. It’s a very courageous thing to say in this atmosphere.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday told a Paris-based magazine that a military strike on Iran would be beneficial to the region. Netanyahu’s statement was published on the eve of a meeting with French President Francois Holland, during which the two planned to discuss the Iran issue among other topics. Netanyahu cited Iran’s lack of popularity in the Middle East:

“Five minutes after, contrary to what the skeptics say, I think a feeling of relief would spread across the region…Iran is not popular in the Arab world, far from it, and some governments in the region, as well as their citizens, have understood that a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for them, not just for Israel.”

Sound familiar? Netanyahu’s statement echoes a point that he made in 2002, when he advocated for a strike on Iraq on the grounds that, among other things, it would benefit the region:

“If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region…the test and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also transform that society and thereby begin too the process of democratizing the Arab world.”

It hardly bears repeating that Arabs in the Middle East did not react favorably to the Iraq war. The year the war began, the Los Angeles Times reported from Syria and found that negative views of America had hardened. One Syrian told the Times ”What they are doing is worse than what Saddam [Hussein] has done.” Brookings Institution polling from 2003 backed up the anecdotes. More than 60 percent of Arabs saw the Iraq war causing “less peace” in the region and more than 70 percent said it would result in “more terrorism.” Shelby Tahimi, a Middle East expert and the creator of the poll, found an “unprecedented tide of public opinion running against the United States” after the Iraq war.

Read more

Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset Danny Danon told a gathering in Chicago that President Obama’s policies were “catastrophic” for Israel, according to the Associated Press. Danon, who is also planning trips to New York and Florida on a book tour, also argued that the President was “not a friend of Israel.”

Though Danon, a Likud minister and ally to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claimed that he was stating a personal opinion rather than interfering in the U.S. election, he has effusively praised GOP candidate Mitt Romney, framing his comments in nakedly electoral terms. In a July op-ed for the Jerusalem Post, Danon wrote:

In this election, those who want what is truly best for Israel are presented with a starker choice than usual. On one hand, there is Gov. Mitt Romney, who is taking the time to visit us at the moment, and who time and again has spoken out strongly for Israel’s rights to safeguard our own interests.

On the other hand, incumbent candidate US President Barack Obama has all but adopted the Palestinian negotiation position and given Israel the cold shoulder on every possible occasion.

Danon has a history of harsh right-wing public positioning. He suggested Israel should permanently annex the occupied Palestinian territories, telling al-Jazeera, “There is place only for one state on the land of Israel …. I do not believe in a two-state solution.” Danon has introduced legislation to annex part of the West Bank. He also implied the U.S. and its allies should use military force to overthrow the Iranian government.

The Likud minister’s comments also present a problem for his party leader, Netanyahu, who has been battling the widespread perception that he has been intervening in the U.S. presidential election on Romney’s behalf. The Prime Minister’s remarks on Iran have been used in an anti-Obama ad that aired in Florida, forcing Netanyahu’s office disavow any involvement in the ad’s production. Netanyahu also gave an interview to Israeli tabloid Israel Hayom denying that he was moving against Obama.

Danon’s judgment of President Obama is not shared by his country’s Defense Minister and President. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said he “can hardly remember a better period of support, American support and cooperation and similar strategic understanding” and that “I don’t think that anyone can raise any question mark about the devotion of this president to the security of Israel.” Similarly, President Shimon Peres told CNN that “when I look at the record of President Obama concerning the major issues, security, I think it’s a highly satisfactory record, from an Israeli point of view.” The Obama administration has broadened American cooperation with Israel on a variety of key issues, including missile defense.

Pentagon policy chief and Undersecretary of Defense Jim Miller told Foreign Policy’s E-Ring blog that the United States’ position and policy on Iran has not changed despite public blistering from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“The timeline, from our perspective, includes the question of how long it takes to enrich, and then how long it would take to go from a certain level of enrichment to weapons grade, and other steps in that process,” Miller said. “And so, as we look at that potential timeline we certainly believe, as I said, that we have time.”

Netanyahu has been publicly pressuring the Obama administration to set so-called “red lines” that would trigger an American military response to Iran’s growing nuclear program. And the prime minister kicked his campaign into overdrive after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s publicly rebuked his request. “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel,” Netanyahu said last week in response to Clinton. And after President Obama rebuffed him on Iran red lines last week, Netanyahu took his case to the Sunday political talk shows here in the U.S.

It turns out that Netanyahu’s campaign isn’t having a lasting impression on Israelis either. The Wall Street Journal reports that a plurality of Israelis polled (41 percent verses 39 percent — and 20 percent who “don’t know”) in a new survey said their prime minister is mishandling relations with the United States on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has echoed Miller, saying last week that the United States would know if Iran decides to push for a nuclear weapon and in that case, there would be time for an appropriate response. The Obama administration has said that it takes no option off the table in its effort to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, including military force.

But also, the Obama administration has repeatedly said that the United States is committed to Israel’s security, evidenced in economic, diplomatic and military assistance. Indeed, Israel’s leaders, including Netanyahu himself, have said this publicly. “President Obama spoke about his ironclad commitment to Israel’s security,” Netanyahu said last year. “He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented.” Israel’s president and defense minister have echoed that sentiment, as recently as July.

“To fully appreciate the audacity of Netanyahu’s demand for still more open-ended American security assurances,” Notre Dame fellow and professor of political science Michael C. Desch said in Foreign Affairs this week referring to Netanyahu’s “red lines” campaign, “it is crucial to recognize just how committed to Israel’s security the United States already is.”

President Obama has said that he won’t allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration is aware, not only of the threat an Iranian nuclear weapon poses, but also the potential negative consequences of a military attack on Iran, such as those outlined in a new bipartisan expert report released last week. And that, coupled with U.N., U.S. and Israeli assessments that Iran has not yet decided on whether to build a nuclear weapon, leads the administration, as Miler told Foreign Policy, to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran, a track the it deems the “best and most permanent way” to solve the nuclear crisis.