Right-wing pundits and politicians are loudly declaring that diplomatic efforts to stop Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program have failed and the time has come for Obama to either participate in a military attack against Iran or stand back while Israel launches airstrikes. The argument increasingly hinges on a “closing window of opportunity” which, according to various reports, limit the Israelis to striking this spring or living with a nuclear weapons armed Iran.

While neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon, the IAEA has expressed concern about military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program. But right-wing hawks — from GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney to Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens — are repeating talking points that the Israelis are on the verge of unilaterally attacking in the face of an “existential threat” from Tehran.

Today, former Israeli intelligence chief Meir Dagan slammed Netanyahu’s government for representing fringe political positions, adding that Israel does not face an existential threat. The AP reports:

Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad spy agency said he does not believe Israel faces an existential threat from Iran, a view that contrasts with Israel’s prime minister and other leaders. [...]

At the launch of an electoral reform movement he chairs, he observed, “I don’t think there is an existential threat.” He did not specifically mention Iran, but the use of the phrase “existential threat” in Israel generally refers to Iran.

Dagan is joined by the current Israeli intelligence chief Tamir Pardo who 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.”

Last week, retired Israeli Lt. Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak told The Independent that the Israeli military’s leadership does not support a strike on Iran and the Associated Press reported that Israel’s new air force chief, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, is “less enthusiastic about a possible attack on Iran” than his predecessor.

There is no doubt that Iran’s nuclear program, if weaponized, is incredibly worrying and constitutes a threat to nuclear non-proliferation efforts as well as Israel’s security. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said recently that Iran can be dissuaded from nuclear weapons through diplomacy and economic sanctions.

For the third time in two weeks, the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin today authored a blog post calling CAP and ThinkProgress “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Israel.” Prompted by an inquiry from Rubin, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has regrettably joined in the attacks on us. In a press release, the Wiesenthal Center said we “are guilty of dangerous political libels resonating with historic and toxic anti-Jewish prejudices.” While calling for raising the level of discourse on the one hand, the Wiesenthal Center makes a number of unfounded allegations. Let’s review them.

The SWC writes, “recent attacks on the Simon Wiesenthal Center by the Center for American Progress (CAP)-associated bloggers on ‘the far-right Simon Wiesenthal Center, which purports to promote tolerance, [but] basically called Obama a Nazi’ for saying that Israel should return to the pre-1967 borders.”

But the SWC omits what we were responding to — the fact that SWC attacked President Obama, claiming he wants Israel to “return to 1967 ‘Auschwitz’ borders.” Here is the headline of their May press release:

SWC: Israel Should Reject a Return to 1967 ‘Auschwitz’ Borders

We found the reference to Auschwitz to be gratuitous and inflammatory in the context of President Obama’s address. Leaving aside whether one considers the 1967 lines to be defensible, the fact is that is that President Obama did not call for Israel to return to those lines, only that they should be the basis for negotiations. Back in May, we highlighted a number of baseless right-wing attacks on Obama for his proposition that “a lasting peace” between the Israelis and the Palestinians “will involve two states” and that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.” Obama’s pronouncement wasn’t new; President Bush in 2005 endorsed a two-state solution with negotiations based on the post-1949 Armistice, pre-1967 borders.

Also in its press release today, the Wiesenthal Center suggested that ThinkProgress was out of bounds when we “articulated the view that it is ‘factually inaccurate’ to assume that ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ — and, in any case, that the danger posed by that program is exaggerated for political purposes.” This is a misrepresentation of what we wrote.

The SWC is referring to a recent ThinkProgress post titled “Quinnipiac Poll Poses Factually Inaccurate Questions Assuming Iran Has A Nuke Weapons Program.” In this post, we took issue with the pollsters’ reference to the existence of “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” in polling questions and noted that that assertion — a determination that neither the International Atomic Energy Agency nor the White House has made — may have impacted the poll’s outcome. In fact, the Washington Post’s ombudsman recently addressed this issue and agreed, warning reporters and policy makers of “[g]etting ahead of the facts on” Iran’s nuclear program.

It is incorrect to assert that we do not take the threat of Iran’s nuclear program seriously. As we noted last week, the Iranian issue is a strong point of concern for us. While we support the Obama administration’s position of “no options off the table,” we do not believe that a military strike would achieve those goals, and we will continue to push back against overheated rhetoric calling for war with Iran.

The Wiesenthal Center does some great work on tolerance that we support. But an effort to build partnerships can and must begin with an understanding that we have shared goals. We’re happy to join in a common pledge of raising the level of discourse. Rejecting the outrageous charges of anti-Semitism made against us lodged by Jennifer Rubin would be a good start.

Former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block, now affiliated with the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and the Truman National Security Project, was quoted in a Politico article last week accusing bloggers here at the Center for American Progress of writing “borderline anti-Semitic stuff.” One day later, Salon reported that in an opposition research document Block pushed to neoconservative journalists shortly before the Politico article was published, Block said CAP bloggers engage in the “vilification…of Jews” and that ThinkProgress’s work constitutes “the words of anti-Semites.” Block subsequently denied that he had made these charges and has yet to issue an apology (we have categorically rejected these accusations).

The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent reports today that PPI and the Truman Project “are privately considering a formal break with Block”:

PPI head Will Marshall privately told Block that the think tank would sever ties with Block if he didn’t retract the charges detailed in Salon, according to a source familiar with the discussions. Block subsequently offered Politico a statement on the charges, claiming he had never accused people at CAP in particular of anti-Semitism, but not walking back or apologizing for the gist of what was reported in the Salon piece. It’s still unclear how PPI — which declined to comment — will proceed at this point.

Meanwhile, at Truman, top officials privately debated via email whether to cut ties with Block after the Salon story broke, a source says. They had already been unhappy with Block’s attacks on critics of Israel, and the Salon piece exacerbated tensions, I’m told.

“Personal attacks have no place in our community,” Truman spokesman Dave Solimini tells me. “That agreement is unbreakable. The trust built among members of the truman community is the issue here. Personal attacks on members of our community, like calling them anti-Semitic, would cross that line.”

As Sargent notes, ThinkProgress reported last week that Block’s third professional association had already criticized Block’s smears of CAP. “Impugning motives of people at the Center [for American Progress] and impugning [that] those motives are driven by anti-Semitism is, in my opinion, wrong,” Block’s business partner and former special counsel to President Bill Clinton Lanny Davis said.

Yesterday, Politico published an article written by Ben Smith purporting to highlight a divide on the left on Middle East policy. The story quoted sources — including former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block — saying that bloggers here at the Center for American Progress are “borderline anti-Semitic” and “anti-Israel.” In the process, Politico also cherry-picked a few posts out of hundreds ThinkProgress has written on Middle East issues to back up its case. Yet Politico misrepresented the posts in question and CAP’s wider Middle East positions.

Salon’s Justin Elliott reports today that Block sent out an email to a neoconservative journalist list-serv called “The Freedom Community” urging members to read and “amplify” Politico’s story, promoting it because in his view it shows that CAP bloggers are “anti-Israel” and vilify “pro-Israel Americans, Jews, Members of Congress, and pretty much anyone who thinks Iran with nuke is a problem, or supports a strong US-Israe [sic] relationship.” He said of our writing, “These are the words of anti-Semites, not Democratic political players.” Block also said in the email — without offering any evidence — that we engage in “hate speech.” (CAP and its affiliated bloggers are pro-Israel, support a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship, believe Iran with a nuclear weapon is a serious problem and do not vilify Jews). While it’s unclear who is on this list-serv, Jen Rubin at the Washington Post, Commentary and the Weekly Standard amplified the Politico article shortly after it was published.

Block also accompanied his email with an extensive 3,000 word opposition research document against ThinkProgress bloggers — which appears to have been completed on Nov. 8 — that contains a number of ad-hominem attacks against us without any evidence backing up those attacks. Instead, Block simply links to dozens of previous posts this blog has written on the Middle East. Some examples:

The CAP writers are not above smearing Democratic politicians and mainstream journalists for being Israel-firsters, for carrying AIPAC’s water, etc. But the personal attacks speak to personal unprofessionalism and borderline libel, while the substantive stuff exposes how far out of the mainstream CAP’s work has actually gotten.

Across everything, there’s a weird combination of sneering recklessness and smug childishness that underlies a lot of their rhetoric. On the recklessness side, there’s a degree to which they really don’t know how shrill they sound and how far off the reservation they’ve strayed. It’s almost as if, in talking to each other, it’s now just natural to talk about Jewish money in politics, about treasonous politicians, etc.

And on Twitter today, Ben Smith acknowledged that he accepted this research document before his article was published yesterday:

Salon’s Elliott notes that Block is a go-to for reporters looking for a right-wing view on the Middle East and that he now is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and also a partner in a lobbying and PR firm, Davis-Block. “It’s not clear,” Elliott adds, “whether Block is shopping the oppo trove on progressive bloggers as a personal project or as part of work for a client.”

At a time of continuing economic crisis in the U.S. and around the world, President Obama’s administration has amassed a record of successes in national security. Irrespective of controversies over some of the policies, Obama has pursued perceived threats in a broadened, borderless drone war; engaged in a NATO war to protect civilians in Libya; and is on the verge of ending one ground war and planning to wind down another even longer one. But this is just not good enough for some conservatives, who insist on portraying Obama as a stereotypical lily-livered liberal afraid to indefinitely continue large-scale U.S. military commitments abroad. The chosen line of attack relies on the now-commonplace trope that Obama doesn’t listen to his generals when formulating his security strategies.

The latest salvo in this assault comes from neoconservative legacy Fred Kagan, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Kagan concludes a Weekly Standard piece — “The President & the Generals” — by writing:

Under no circumstances should the president of the United States ever take an important military decision simply because a uniformed officer has recommended it. But, when the president does overrule his commanders, he had better have an extremely good reason not only to reject their advice but to prefer his own wisdom. And if he finds himself doing it repeatedly, he would do well to consider what the source of the problem really is.

Given most of the Republican presidential field’s shaky understanding of civilian control of the military, Kagan’s “under no circumstances” caveat is welcome. Nonetheless, Kagan’s implication here is obvious: the real “source of the problem” is Obama himself. Kagan, then, would do well consider for himself that there’s been another overarching problem affecting government decisions over the past three years: a financial crisis of epic proportions that has, is, and will likely continue to bear on decisions made by a commander-in-chief, though, crucially, not on commanders on the ground. And while military commanders are charged with making tactical recommendations and informing on military strategy, the president decides the country’s overall national security strategy, a concept Kagan seems to have overlooked.

Retired Gen. David Petraeus, who, in 2010, won AEI’s prestigious Kristol Award, hinted at such disparity between the purviews of a president and his generals when he explained the chain-of-command at a confirmation hearing to his current post atop the Central Intelligence Agency. Petraeus, at the time the top U.S. military officer for Afghanistan, said:

[A]t every level of the chain of command above me there are additional considerations, and each person above me, all the way up to and including the president has a broader purview and broader considerations that are brought to bear. The president alone [is] in the position of evaluating all those different considerations, including certainly those of the commander on the ground but also many others as well in reaching his decision.

Petraeus lamented that he wasn’t getting everything he wanted from a military standpoint, but acknowledged that he was “talking about small differences” and that the situation was “understandable in the sense that there are broader considerations beyond just those of a military commander.” He went on to say that no military commander gets everything they want:

The fact is that there has never been a military commander in history who has had all the forces he would like to have. Or all the time. Or all the money. Or all the authorities. Or, nowadays, all the bandwidth.

So, if Obama “finds himself [making different decisions than his generals] repeatedly,” that isn’t quite the extraordinary situation Kagan posits.

The hawks on the American Enterprise Institute’s foreign policy team are usually quick to hype the threat of a nuclear Iran and warn anyone who will listen that a nuclear armed Iran would spell doomsday for Israel and regional stability in the Middle East. But Danielle Pletka, the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at AEI now says that the problem with a nuclear weapons possessing Iran is that the world might accept it as a responsible, nuclear weapons possessing state.

Pletka, speaking in an AEI promotional video, veers off-course from her usual talking point that a nuclear Iran would be uncontainable and hellbent on the destruction of Israel, saying:

The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it. It’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second they have one and they don’t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, ‘See! We told you Iran is a reponsible power. We told you Iran wasn’t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately. We told you Iran wasn’t seeking regional influence or regional hegemony through its acquisition of nuclear weapons. And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

Watch it:

“Hold on. The ‘biggest problem’ with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it but that they won’t use it and that they might behave like a ‘responsible power’?” Media Matters’ MJ Rosenberg asks, adding, “But what about the hysteria about a second Holocaust?”

Pletka’s new position — that the “biggest problem” is Iran possessing a nuclear weapon and not using it — is probably not going to be the talking point du jour at AEI’s December 6, event “The Costs of Containing Iran: More Than the U.S. Is Bargaining For.” But it will be interesting to see if Pletka uses the venue to clarify her position and reaffirm her hard-line stance against a nuclear Iran.

After the conclusion of Tuesday night’s GOP national security and foreign policy debate, CNN Democratic political analyst Donna Brazile remarked that the debate seemed like a bad flashback:

This was like retro debate. I felt like we were going back into the past. The neocons — it was like the last hurrah, celebration of the past. Not looking at the current threats and the way the president has handled them and perhaps how we handle future threats to this country.

Brazile is right: Despite the rise of the Tea Party, with its disdain for government, and libertarian non-interventionist Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) primacy in important Republican races, the GOP seems inextricably wedded to the foreign policy ethos that defined the first George W. Bush term.

Last night’s debate was hosted by two think tanks with close links to the personnel and ideology of the Bush Administration. Most of the “audience questions” came from scholars from the organizations, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation. The latter, though not as renown for militaristic neoconservatism as the former, nonetheless advocates many similar positions, such as robust defense spending levels, continuing large-scale military commitments in the Middle East and Central Asia, hawkishness on Iran and unflinching support for Israeli government policies.

The Bush foreign policy era connections were on full display last night, despite the fact that Bush himself was barely mentioned. The former president’s unpopularity in the waning days of his administration may be the reason he’s barely been mentioned. In the ten previous debates, Bush one came up only 19 times, most of them critical mentions, according to an analysis by Michael Cohen. Last night, Bush got two shout-outs, both of them from “audience questions” from top former Bush administration officials.

Those officials, and the think tankers that cheered on the administration, featured prominently in the debate. Here’s a quick run-down of some of the most controversial ones and what they asked about:

DAVID ADDINGTON: The Heritage staffer, former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and co-author of the infamous “torture memos,” asked about Syria and what the candidates thought constituted U.S. interests, and “what would you do to protect them.”

DANIELLE PLETKA: The vice president of foreign policy and defense studies at AEI and wife of Romney campaign staffer Stephen Rademaker, Pletka held to her longstanding hawkishness on Iran, positing that “Iran is probably less than a year away from getting a nuclear weapon” and wondering if sanctions could bring an end to Iran’s nuclear program.

EDWIN MEESE III: The former Reagan administration Attorney General and Heritage fellow asked, “Shouldn’t we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in [the Patriot Act]?”

MARC THIESSEN: A speechwriter for the Bush White House and Donald Rumsfeld‘s Defense Department who advocates relentlessly for permissive interrogation guidelines — ie. torture — the AEI fellow asked what national security issue the candidates thought was going unmentioned but that loomed on the horizon.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: The AEI scholar and, at the Bush Pentagon, a key architect of the Iraq war, asked if the foreign development aid levels of the Bush administration were possible to attain in the age of austerity.

FRED KAGAN: The AEI scholar and Iraq war dead-ender asked: “Do you think that an expanded drone campaign in Pakistan would be sufficient to defeat al-Qaeda and to secure our interests in Pakistan?”

The Washington Post ThinkTanked blog wondered yesterday if two think-tanks which are closely affiliated with some of the candidates and their hawkish advisers can host an unbiased debate. But journalist Max Blumenthal asked if the bigger issue wasn’t whether a “news network… has handed control over its campaign coverage” to ideological neoconservatives. It seems, though, from watching the debate, that the GOP also acquiesces to a strong neoconservative influence over its foreign policies. If the party retakes the presidency, which controls foreign affairs, the U.S. seems likely to return to the aggressive policies of the first Bush term.

The release this week of a U.N. report with detailed findings pointing toward potential Iranian nuclear weapons work saw a chorus of right-wing calls for war with Iran. Yesterday, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney came out with a Wall Street Journal op-ed threatening war with the Islamic Republic, delivering the message to the Iranians that “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

In the wake of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report on Iran — which, despite the hype, may not be quite the “game-changer” hawks had hoped for — one prominent Romney adviser went further than the candidate, calling for a military strike against Iran. Eric Edelman, a former staffer to Vice President Dick Cheney and board member of a neoconservative pressure group, warned in the journal Foreign Policy that, if Iran goes nuclear, there would be a series of terrible consequence. After raising the “possibility of an Israeli-Iranian nuclear conflict” — ie, nuclear war — in an article headlined “Why Obama Should Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Program: The Case For Striking Before It’s Too Late,” Edelman and his co-authors wrote:

The closer Iran gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the fewer options will be available to stop its progress. At the same time, Iran’s incentives to back down will only decrease as it approaches the nuclear threshold. Given these trends, the United States faces the difficult decision of using military force soon to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or living with a nuclear Iran and the regional fallout.

Edelman’s hawkishness on Iran is not new: In a January article in the same journal, he wrote with the same co-authors: “The military option should not be dismissed because of the appealing but flawed notion that containment is a relatively easy or low-risk solution to a very difficult problem.”

As ThinkProgress has noted, hawks abound on the Romney campaign foreign policy team — among them, those who pushed for the Iraq war and a slew who’ve pressed the case for attacking Iran. One even advocates for a controversial Iranian exile group that the State Department considers a terrorist organization. (HT: Marc Lynch)

After the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog released its periodic report yesterday, replete with rich details about possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program, conservative hawks — ranging from journalists to think-tankers and even a presidential candidate — stepped up their support for a military strike on the Islamic Republic. While many in Congress are pushing for draconian sanctions on Iran, those not on Capital Hill are pushing a step farther.

Here’s a quick round-up of statements supporting a U.S. or Israeli attack from GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, former Bush administration U.N. ambassador John Bolton, Wall Street Journal opinion and editorial writer Bret Stephens, and Council on Foreign Relations scholar Max Boot.

STEPHENS: [T]he policy debate… needs to abandon the conceit that there is a third way between allowing Iran’s nuclear drive to proceed effectively unhindered or to use military force to stop it…. A (bad) argument can be made that a nuclear Iran could be contained.

BOOT: Really stopping the Iranian program would require much tougher steps on the part of the U.S.–steps such as a naval blockade to cripple the Iranian economy and/or air strikes to cripple Iran’s military capacity.

GINGRICH: Well, if the Israelis decide as matter of national survival that they have to eliminate the Iranian nuclear capacity, I would strongly support them automatically… I think to ask them to take that risk is unconscionable.

BOLTON: The only alternative now is the potential for a pre-emptive military strike against their military program, either by the United States or Israel. Diplomacy has failed. Sanctions have failed.

Watch clips of Gingrich and Bolton:

It’s worth keeping in mind the right wing has been calling for an attack on Iran absent any evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program and well before the IAEA’s report.

“Iran’s nuclear program has produced much demagoguery and dangerous speculation,” the Atlantic Council’s Barbara Slavin noted yesterday in a Politico op-ed. “Dozens of other countries, however, have conducted nuclear research without becoming nuclear weapons states,” she said, adding, “It’s not too late to dissuade Iran from building and testing a nuclear weapon.”

Condoleezza Rice continued her book tour this week talking with Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin. Rogin pushed Rice to share her reflections on the Obama administration’s foreign policy, and surprisingly, the former Secretary of State chose to distance herself from the right-wing talking point that the end of year troop withdrawal from Iraq will dangerously strengthen Iran’s regional influence.

The go-to criticism leveled by GOP hawks doesn’t hold much water with Rice. She told Rogin:

The Iraqis are good armed forces; they’re buying a lot of our equipment. I think they’ll be able to defend themselves. They continue to need help on the counterterrorism side, and it would have been a good message to Iran. Although I think it’s easy to overstate the degree to which the Iraqis have any attraction to Iran — that’s a pretty lousy relationship, really.

Neocons and various Republicans harshly criticized President Obama for announcing that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year. Fred and Kimberly Kagan wrote that “it will unquestionably benefit Iran.” Newt Gingrich told an audience, “Don’t kid yourself, it is defeat. Iran is stronger.” Rick Santorum claimed “Iranians now have more sway over the Iraqi government.” And the Bill Kristol “letterhead organization,” the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) wrote, in anticipation of a withdrawal, that the U.S. must maintain a strong presence in Iraq to “help ensure Iraq remains oriented away from Iran and a long-term ally of the United States.”

While neoconservatives and GOP presidential hopefuls are eager to suggest that the Obama administration’s withdrawal from Iraq — in conformity with the Status Of Forces Agreement negotiated and signed by Bush — is a major win for Iran, the former Secretary of State is clearly not buying it.