A former Israeli prime minister joined the growing chorus of top former officials to criticize the Netanyahu government’s hawkish approach to Iran, urging that time remained to broker a diplomatic deal and that heated rhetoric and historical comparisons could paint Israel into a corner.

Ehud Olmert, who left office in 2009 under a corruption scandal, told a conference in New York on Sunday:

There is enough time to try different avenues of pressure to change the balance of power with Iran without the need for a direct military confrontation with Iran.

He went even further in interviews with news media, warning off an Israeli attack. Olmert told Israel’s Channel 10:

There is no reason at this time not to talk about a military effort, but definitely not to initiate an Israeli military strike.

In an interview with the New York Times, he echoed concerns of Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, retired Israeli brigadier general Shlomo Brom, and his successor atop the Kadima opposition party Tzipi Livni that the Israeli government’s rhetoric on Iran was getting too heated. Olmert, who eschewed comparisons between Iran and Nazi Germany, said:

They talk too much, they talk too loud. They are creating an atmosphere and a momentum that may go out of their control.

At the conference in New York, the former top military officer in Israel, Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, said the Israelis “still have time” before they need to launch an attack and called for “crippling sanctions and much more severe sanctions.” His successor at the top military post Gen. Benny Gantz last week echoed reported Israeli and American intelligence estimates and said Iran “hasn’t yet decided whether to go the extra mile” and build a bomb.

While a potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat 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 end the West’s crisis with Iran.

More than seventy retired military officers wrote a letter to Congress urging that the body not cut the budget for non-military means of executing U.S. foreign policy. The letter, written under the auspices of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition’s (USGLC) national security advisory group, spoke out against “disproportionate cuts” that would cut civilian programs while boosting military spending, calling on Congress to ensure that “civilian programs have the resources needed to maintain the hard-fought gains of our military.”

The letter (PDF) defending the so-called international affairs budget that covers non-military spending went on:

Development and diplomacy keep us safer by addressing threats in the most dangerous corners of the world and by preventing conflicts before they occur. The State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development and other civilian-led programs are especially critical at a time when we are asking them to take on greater responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Addressing today’s challenges with civilian tools costs far less than it does to send in the military in dollars and, more importantly, in terms of the risks to the lives of our men and women in uniform. At just over one percent of federal spending, the International Affairs Budget is a strong return on our investment.

The letter comes just a week after Republican Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) released a budget that called for the international affairs spending to be slashed by 11 percent, or $6 billion, while boosting military spending by at least $8 billion. Ryan’s budget document took shots at the administration, noting in one section that Obama “has chosen to subordinate national security strategy to his other spending priorities.” Speaking to U.S. News and World Report, Russell Rumbaugh, a former senior Senate Budget Committee aide now with the Stimson Center, said:

This reflects more an ideological statement than any real discussion about what the international budget levels should be.

An Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran summed up the Republican plan: “They cut every tool in the president’s toolbox that isn’t a gun,” said Michael Breen, who works with the Truman National Security Project, recounting how it was a foreign language-enabled diplomat — not their own weapons — that once helped him and fellow soliders get out a jam.

The ostensible aspirations of the Ryan plan, meanwhile, are shared by the USGLC letter signatories, who wrote that they “recognize that we must reduce our nation’s debt.” Yet, with non-military spending such a relatively small piece of the pie and capable of a “strong return” on the investment, the ex-military leaders urged Congress to “support a strong and effective International Affairs Budget and oppose disproportionate cuts to this vital account.”

A new poll released yesterday showed Americans exhibiting strong support for the U.S. and its partners “continuing to pursue negotiations with Iran” over the country’s disputed nuclear program. Released by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the University of Maryland, the poll (PDF) found that nearly seven in ten Americans favored continuing diplomacy, with just a quarter opting for an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

To the right is a chart of two of the report’s key findings, American support for diplomacy and working Iran issues through international fora at the United Nations.

As part of the Obama administration’s dual-track policy toward Iran — crippling pressure and negotiations aimed at attaining the “best and most permanent way” to end the standoff with a diplomatic deal — the U.S. garnered support at the U.N. Security council for sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program and at the U.N. Human Rights Council for a Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran that has condemned Iranian abuses.

While poll respondents took a pessimistic view of Iran’s nuclear program and Western efforts to block it — a vast majority thought Iran will eventually develop a nuclear weapon — their views on the matter, at times, diverged from conclusions drawn from publicly available evidence and statements by top American security officials. For instance, 58 percent of respondents thought Iran has decided on producing a weapon and is actually working toward that aim. But, despite “serious concerns,” the International Atomic Energy Agency’s most recent report contains no such assertions.

Furthermore, reports about American intelligence estimates — as well as statements by top U.S. military and intelligence officials — indicate that they don’t think Iran has chosen to produce a bomb.

However, majorities of Americans think the U.S. should discourage allies from militarily attacking Iran. This may be due to perceived negative consequences of an attack on Iran’s nuclear program. More than half of poll respondents thought bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would either strengthen the position of the Iranian regime among the country’s population, or have no effect at all on its popularity. Responding to a question about the effects of a strike on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, 42 percent of those surveyed said Iran’s program would be delayed for less than five years. Only 18 percent thought Iran’s program would be delayed longer than that, and 22 percent thought Iran’s nuclear program would be accelerated as a result of an attack.

However, Obama administration’s policy still deems Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon unacceptable — an Iranian bomb would pose a threat to the U.S. and its allies and interests — and keeps all options on the table to avert it. But as Obama has said, “a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better.”

The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice appeared on MSNBC this morning defending the Obama administration’s Iran policy even as she tempered her optimism for a breakthrough in upcoming talks. “The window is finite,” she said, urging Iran to “come serious, ready to deal.” Rice remarked that going to war with Iran over its nuclear program “premature,” and added that “a strike is not going to end the program in perpetuity. It may set it back a year or two.”

Along with allies such as France, Rice was skeptical talks can work:

RICE: You don’t trust them [Iran]. But we test the proposition, which is very much in our interest, that with this mounting and crippling economic pressure, the extraordinary sanctions that we have put in place internationally and on a national basis, that Iran is really starting to feel the heat. …

Let me be very be clear and repeat what the president said this week: We have a clear cut policy of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, not containing a nuclear Iran. We think the best and most permanent way of accomplishing that is through a combined policy of intensified sanctions and pressure, which we are mounting, with the opportunity for Iran to resolve these issues diplomatically. If they take that opportunity and give up their program through a negotiated solution, that’s the best case scenario. …

if they don’t accomplish that through a negotiating process in short order, then of course as the president said, all options remain on the table.

Watch Rice concisely lay out the Obama administration’s policy:

The repudiation of “containing a nuclear Iran” tracks with Obama’s speech to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee this weekend, where he said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the U.S. and its allies, and the international non-proliferation regime:

A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the nonproliferation regime that we’ve done so much to build. There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization. It is almost certain that others in the region would feel compelled to get their own nuclear weapon, triggering an arms race in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

Rice added that the Iranian regime has engaged in “crazy behavior” like calling for Israel’s destruction, but echoed Obama and the top U.S. military officer by noting that “we have seen Iran make decisions based on their calculation of their interest.” Faced with pressure, she said, the regime has “changed course,” raising hopes of a “real possibility that with mounting and crippling economic pressure, that Iran may change course and come to the table seriously.”

The IAEA and U.S. intelligence officials have said that Iran is on a path toward a nuclear weapons program. Indeed, the AP reported yesterday that the U.N. nuclear agency is concerned that Iran may have tried to cleanse traces of nuclear material from a site suspected of focusing on alleged weaponization aspects of its nuclear program. But the IAEA and U.S. intelligence have also said that so far, Iran has not yet decided on whether to build nuclear weapons.

Our guest blogger is Sarah Margon, associate director of sustainable security at the Center for American Progress.

With the New Year approaching, it’s a good time to take stock of the U.S. government’s response to the political upheaval throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Government officials continue to grapple with how best to balance American security interests with support for expanding democratic rights in the region. In recent important speeches, however, Hillary Clinton layed out the U.S. intention to support these transitioning countries and their citizens.

Notably absent from the conversation, though, is how the State Department and other key U.S. foreign affairs agencies can do a better job detecting –- and responding to –- crisis and conflict writ large. Such tools are essential given the increasing regularity with which political instability can emerge anywhere in the world.

As the first-ever Quadrennial Defense and Development Review noted, “With the right tools, training, and leadership, our diplomats and development experts can defuse crises before they explode.” Indeed, as political dynamics around the globe continue to shift unexpectedly, preventing and responding to expensive and destructive global crises will need to be incorporated as a cornerstone of our foreign policy — not an afterthought. If the United States wants to become a more effective international player and avoid costly engagements, our diplomats and development experts need to possess the right skill set. And let the price of the just concluded Iraq war underscore the huge price to be paid when we get our analysis wrong.

While the bulk of Americans probably assume their diplomats and development experts are the best trained, they would be shocked to learn how little training these officials actually received, especially compared to those who serve in the military. In fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell noted that he spent 6 out of his 30 years of service in the classroom. With better and more regularized training, diplomats and development experts can help advance democracy, galvanize economic growth, and strengthen the rule of law before a conflict emerges — not after. Without it, they are left making ad-hoc and reactive decisions that end up costing a whole lot more.

The newly upgraded Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations is a tremendously important first step in the State Department’s effort to “get ahead of change” -– particularly with Rick Barton as its inaugural Assistant Secretary. But if the bureau is going help ensure crisis prevention is a core consideration of policy making, it must be underpinned by a more broad-based comprehensive training initiative.

A new joint report from the Center for American Progress’ Sustainable Security Program and Humanity United — entitled “It All Starts with Training” — delineates the profound need for improved training courses and professional development opportunities at core U.S. foreign affairs agencies. As the paper makes painfully clear, the current state of conflict prevention training at both State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) remains shockingly limited, ad hoc, and uncoordinated. In fact, training has little or no link to career advancement, as opposed to our military branches, and is often seen as an inconvenience rather than an asset.

Expanded and mainstreamed crisis prevention training is certainly no foreign policy panacea, but with such a high number of countries around the globe at risk of unrest and wholesale violence, it’s high time we ensure American diplomats and development experts at least have the right tools to respond. Unless the United States can get ahead of this curve and does a better job in crisis prevention and mitigation, the costs to America — and its national interests — will remain untenable.