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.”

Mitt Romney’s main theme on his foreign trip to the U.K., Israel and Poland this week is that President Obama isn’t sufficiently friendly to America’s allies, particularly the Jewish State. “The people of Israel deserve better than what they have received from the leader of the free world,” Romney said in a speech just days before he left American soil.

But two senior Israeli leaders have a different view. In recent interviews with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that aired this afternoon, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres praised Obama’s commitment to Israel:

BARAK: I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing, in regard to our security, more than anything that I can remember in the past. … In terms of the support for our security, the cooperation of our intelligence, the sharing of sorts in a very open way even when there are differences.

PERES: 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.

Watch the clips:

Praise for Obama’s policies toward Israel is nothing new for Barak and Peres, but the timing of their recent acclaim is significant given Romney’s theme that the president isn’t pro-Israel.

Even Blitzer took notice. “They were extremely complimentary to President Obama, both of them, even as Romney was still basically on the ground in Israel,” Blitzer said today. “I was pretty surprised by the effusive enthusiastic praise they had for President Obama given some of the problems President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu had in their personal relationship.”

Indeed, just last week, Obama signed a measure approving $70 million for Israel’s short-range rocket shield known as “Iron Dome.” “I have made it a top priority for my administration to deepen cooperation with Israel across a whole spectrum of security issues,” Obama said.

In the late 1940s, Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg famously said that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” In recent years, adherence to the axiom has fallen by the wayside. In 2005, President Clinton criticized the sitting Bush administration in a Dubai speech. And President Obama delivered a 2008 speech to cheering throngs in Berlin during a presidential race. But Obama’s Berlin speech focused on policy issues and avoided criticizing his Republican opponent Sen. John McCain (AZ) or the waning Bush administration.

This weekend, however, the Romney campaign took politics overseas in a much more explicit fashion: dispatching two advisers to foreign publications amid an established one-on-one presidential race to heavily criticize President Obama by name and build their case that Mitt Romney should be president.

In one of the salvos against President Obama, Romney economic adviser Glenn Hubbard took to the pages of the German business magazine Handelsblatt to sharply criticize the administration’s stance on the European fiscal crisis. According to a translated portions of the article in the New York Times, Hubbard lambasted Obama’s “ignorance of the causes of the crisis and of a growth trend in the future,” calling the president “unwise.” After taking the president to task by name, Hubbard contrasted him with Romney:

Mitt Romney, Obama’s Republican opponent, understands this very well and advises a gradual fiscal consolidation for the U.S.: structural reform to stimulate growth.

According to the Times, the Obama campaign already took a shot at Hubbard’s op-ed:

In a foreign news outlet, Governor Romney’s top economic adviser both discouraged essential steps that need to be taken to promote economic recovery and attempted to undermine America’s foreign policy abroad.

The second overseas assault on President Obama came from Romney foreign policy adviser Amb. Richard Williamson. Speaking to the Israeli daily Haaretz, Williamson zeroed in on Obama’s Iran and Israel policies. “Under Barack Obama, our national security capabilities have decreased,” he said, blasting “President Obama’s feckless and ineffective leadership.” He went on:

What the Governor has tried to make clear is that one of the unfortunate results of the Obama foreign policy is our friends and allies, including Great Britain, Israel and others, have not had their interests taken into account, have not been consulted closely, and there isn’t a constructive working relationship.

The claims are baseless. Indeed, Romney and his advisers are the ones who last month publicly trashed Great Britain, its leaders, and other European allies. And Williamson’s claim that “there isn’t a constructive working relationship” with Israel belie a reality where Israeli leaders like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu note that Obama “rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented,” and Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Obama is an “extremely strong supporter of Israel in regard to its security” and that no one should “raise any question mark about the devotion of this president to the security of Israel.”

With direct political attacks being waged overseas, the 1940s and Vandenberg are clearly in the rearview. But perhaps at least the Romney campaign could do America — and the world — a favor by maintaining a modicum of honesty in their attacks on Obama launched from overseas.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and former Israeli spy chief Meir Dagan have both made waves over the past months with statements asserting that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could only delay, not destroy, the Islamic Republic’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Speaking in Tel Aviv last week, Michèle Flournoy, formerly the Obama administration’s undersecretary of defense for policy, emphasized that while the U.S. has a real and viable set of military options against Iran, an Israeli unilateral strike would be unproductive and any military action “would put time on the clock, but it wouldn’t solve the problem in any meaningful way.”

Flournoy’s comments were delivered at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) on May 29 and 30 and appeared to attempt to both alleviate Israeli concerns that the U.S. was insufficiently committed to preventing a nuclear armed Iran and dissuade Israel from launching its own unilateral strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“Having sat in the Pentagon, I can assure you of the quality of the work that has been done. [...] The military option for the president is real,” said Flournoy. “Barack Obama is a president that says what he means and does what he says. [...] I can assure you we do not have a policy of containment.”

Flournoy, who left the Pentagon in February and advises the Obama re-election campaign, warned that Israeli military action would ultimately prove counterproductive to Israeli and U.S. interests, telling the audience:

If Israel would launch an attack prematurely, it would undermine the ability of the international community to come together in the critical long-term campaign. It would ultimately hurt our goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

That warning was amplified by former Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Blackwill who told the INSS audience, “If there were attacks on the American homeland [in response to an Israeli attack on Iran], how many Americans might think that Israel dragged us into a war and now shopping malls were being blown up?”

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. However, intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. 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 crisis.

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)

On a campaign call just ahead of Vice President Joe Biden’s foreign policy speech today, top foreign policy advisers to presumtive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney attacked the Obama administration’s Iran policy. While emphatically denying that the Romney campaign was threatening Iran with an attack, his advisers Dan Senor and Alex Wong admonished the administration for an honest discourse about what the potential consequences of an attack would be.

Asked by a reporter about Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s comments last week that the Obama administration-led U.N. sanctions program on Iran have been “effective,” the Romney advisers said:

DAN SENOR: (T)he administration has gone out of its way to convey that the military option is not serious. I mean, just look at the things Secretary [of Defense Leon] Panetta has said over the last year, whether it was at the Halifax conference, whether it was the Saban conference at Brookings… He went out of his way to talk about how disastrous military action against Iran would be for the United States, for the global economy, for the region. …

ALEX WONG: The administration has repeatedly talked down the military option and the effectiveness and the (inaudible) of the military option by the united states and Israel.

Listen to a clip of the call here:

Romney’s advisers offer, at best, misleading interpretations of Obama administration policies and statements; at worst, they make claims unsupported by the facts. For example, far from “project[ing] to the world that the military option against Iran is off the table,” Obama has said again and again that all options remain “on the table” to deal with a potential Iranian nuclear weapons program. 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 have not concluded that Iran has made a decision to pursue a weapon.

Read more

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak appeared on CNN yesterday to be interviewed by anchor Christiane Amanpour. In a sometimes contentious interview, Amanpour focused mostly on the Iranian nuclear program. Despite agreement that a potential nuclear armed Iran would constitute a threat, a slight rift opened up last week between the U.S. and Israeli administrations over the first new round of talks between Iran and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.

Amanpour dove into Iran issues and commented on Barak’s repeated references to Iran’s “military nuclear program.” Amanpour cited reports about American intelligence estimates which — along with Israeli and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates — doesn’t conclude that Iran has decided on building a weapon. “You’re obviously very concerned, and so are many, should Iran get a nuclear capability that’s military. As I said, the U.S. does not believe any such decision has been made,” she said. Barak shot back: “No, no, no. The — I want to correct you.” He didn’t, however, contradict what she said, but rather added to it his own assessment:

BARAK: I’m talking to the American intelligence. I’ve talked to American leaders. There is no difference in the assessment of intelligence. It’s true that probably [Iranian Supreme Leader] Khamenei did not give an order to start building a weapon or a device.

But why he’s doing this, just because he understands that if he starts to break the IAEA and start to actually build a weapon, he might find himself faced with an American response, Israeli response or whoever, in a way that might damage him. And that’s the only reason why he did not give the order. But they’re clearly heading toward this objective.

AMANPOUR: But if that’s the case, then, then surely the pressure is working, that they’re not doing it, as you said, because the pressure is there and the threat of what you might do.

BARAK: These are quite effective sanctions. But it’s still far away from working.

Watch the video:

Barak is right to say that sanctions have not worked, as such, because Iran has yet to answer many questions from the IAEA about its past activities and allow unfettered access to sites on the IAEA’s list — both points Barak made. But Barak’s conclusion, which buttressed Amanpour’s point, is also correct: pressure is having an effect, as evinced by Iran’s willingness to come to the table and engage — albeit on what will almost certainly be a rocky path. President Obama has vowed to keep all options on the table and limits the window for successful negotiations, which his administration considers the “best and most permanent way” to end the crisis.

Barak’s comments that sanctions “are quite effective” track with those of Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. Ron Prosor, who said earlier this month that the sanctions track is “much more effective than people think and it might change, hopefully it might change behavior patterns if we continue with it.”

In upcoming talks between the P5+1 and Iran, U.S. officials are hoping to make progress in persuading Iran to suspend high-level uranium enrichment and close a nuclear facility near the city of Qoms. While rejecting any pre-conditions for talks, Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi acknowledged that “we have our opinions and the P5+1 have theirs but we have to find common areas.”

Indeed, the international sanctions regime has increasingly squeezed Iran’s ability to engage in the global economy, according to U.S., European and Israeli sources, and given Iran growing incentives to engage the P5+1 in negotiations on its nuclear program. But in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak voiced misgivings:

It is clear that the depths of the sanctions is different for what we had in the past, and it has its impact both the closing of the SWIFT clearing system as well as the sanctions on the oil export and, of course, the coming negotiations that will probably encourage them to move.

But to tell the truth, we hope for the better, but I don’t believe that this amount of sanctions and pressure will bring the Iranian leadership to the conclusion that they have to stop their nuclear military program.

Watch it:

But Barak’s pessimism isn’t shared by other Israeli government officials. Last week, Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Ron Prosor, wrote that sanctions have been “much more effective than people think” and “hopefully it might change behavior patterns if we continue with us.”

And Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the CBC last week, “there is evidence that these sanctions are hurting, that it’s impacting on their economy, it’s impacting on their ability to govern themselves.”

In his CNN interview, Barak said Iran is moving forward with a “nuclear military program” and also said Iran is “determined to reach nuclear military capability.” Top U.S. officials and the IAEA agree that Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear capability and that some of their activities may have military dimensions. But the IAEA, and U.S. and Israeli Intelligence agree that Iran has “not made the decision to actually produce a nuclear weapon” as Panetta said last week.