Amos Yadlin, a former high-level Israeli military intelligence official, said in a paper he co-wrote and published yesterday that bilateral negotiations between the United States and Iran would be “a positive development” for Israel. Yadlin’s report comes on the heals of a New York Times report that Iran and the U.S. had agreed to bilateral negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program after the election. The White House and Iran have denied the Times’ report.

Israeli government officials have said they are unaware of any agreement; Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the U.S., said “we do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks.” But an anonymous “senior Israeli official” told the New York Times that “the Israelis were aware of the effort toward bilateral talks and were open to it.” Another Israeli official, Moshe Ya’alon, told Israeli radio that Israel had “no objections” and knew about the talks in advance.

In the paper, Yadlin and co-author Avner Golov say that negotiations could signify a productive shift in diplomacy with Iran:

“This degree of backpedalling, a complete U-turn from its official policy, is indicative of the effectiveness of the pressure exerted on Iran, and a signal of its capacity to bring about real change in the country’s policy.”

According to Haaretz, Yadlin and Golov say one-on-one talks between Iran and the U.S. would be a welcome alternative to “extreme options that are currently on the table: ‘a[n Iranian] bomb or a [Western or Israeli] bombardment’,” adding, “If the negotiations fail, the argument that all other options have been exhausted will be stronger, and there’s no way to prevent Iran’s nuclearization except a military strike.”

Yadlin, according to Haaretz was from 2006 to 2010: “the national assessor who played a central role in managing the overt and covert campaign against the Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuges in Natanz and Fordow.” In September, Yadlin spoke up for the first time against an early attack on Iran, saying: “They say that time has almost run out, but I say there still is time. The decisive year is not 2012 but 2013. Maybe even early 2014.” Yadlin also added: “I still think we should wait and see whether the heavy sanctions imposed in July 2012 will bring about a change, but up to now the change has not happened.”

Believing that an Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat, the Obama administration and its European allies have implemented several rounds of crippling sanctions aimed at finding a diplomatic solution. The Congressional Research Service said in an October 15 report that the sanctions could be expected to produce a solution quickly: “Many judge that Iran might soon decide it needs a nuclear compromise to produce an easing of sanctions.” The report also finds that sanctions have resulted in a loss of nearly 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. Oil sales, according to the CRS, “provide about 70% of Iran’s government revenues.” Iran has also watched its currency spiral as a result of sanctions; according to the New York Times, the Iranian rial has “lost 40 percent of its value against the dollar.”

Ami Ayalon, the former chief of Israel’s domestic security organization, Shin Bet, argued that threatening an attack on Iran is not in Israel’s best interest. Specifically, Ayalon took issue with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s militaristic rhetoric toward the Islamic Republic. Speaking in London, Ayalon said “Mr. Netanyahu has been playing the role of irresponsible player in the region. That raises the questions: Does he mean it? And what is the price?”

Later in his interview, Ayalon mentioned that Netanyahu’s tough talk could harm one important aspect of Israel’s interests: the idea of nuclear ambiguity, which refers to Israel’s likely but not acknowledged nuclear weapons program. Ayalon said Netanyahu’s Iran policy jeopardized it: “The world won’t let you have nuclear ambiguity if you act crazy.”

But Ayalon joins a long list of former Israeli defense officials issuing caution about a military approach to Iran. The list includes former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy, who have each given several rounds of interviews urging diplomacy on the Iran issue. Dagan said on 60 minutes earlier this year that an attack on Iran “would galvanize Iranian society behind the leadership and create unity around the nuclear issue.” Some of these officials have raised similar concerns about Mitt Romney’s Iran policy. In an interview with Al-Monitor, Halevy said, “What Romney is doing is mortally destroying any chance of a resolution without war. Therefore when [he recently] said, he doesn’t think there should be a war with Iran, this does not ring true. It is not consistent with other things he has said.”

Former Israeli defense officials have also praised the Obama administration’s approach, arguing that sanctions enforced by the administration and its European allies have been effective. Last week in Washington, D.C., Halevy said it’s not time for a strike on Iran, and urged diplomacy by adding: “Sanctions, more sanctions, more sanctions and many other things. … The fact of the matter is the sanctions have not brought the end to the program but sanctions are hurting very much.”

During Monday’s presidential foreign policy debate, Romney adopted a position that sanctions enforced by President Obama have “worked” and were “absolutely the right thing to do.” He said he would only consider a strike on Iran “if all of the other avenues had been — had been tried to their full extent.” But that statement stands in contrast to Romney’s usual rhetoric on Iran. Just months earlier, Romney said: “Nothing in my view is as serious a failure as [President Obama's] failure to deal with Iran appropriately. This president — this president should have put in place crippling sanctions against Iran, he did not.” In September, Romney moved up his threshold for military action against Iran to a “nuclear weapons capability” — which some have said Iran already has — as compared to the president’s suggestion of making the decision, or “break out,” to build a bomb his so-called “red line.”

Believing that an Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat, the Obama administration is set on finding a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. The sanctions have had a severe impact on Iran’s economy. U.S., Israeli and U.N. officials have repeatedly pointed out that Iran has not yet decided to pursue a nuclear weapon.

In an interview published today in Foreign Policy magazine, Efraim Halevy, former head of the Israeli spy organization the Mossad, slammed Mitt Romney for repeatedly turning Israel into a campaign issue during the election:

“Regarding the election, I think many of the statements made by the Republican candidate are very undesirable as far as Israel is concerned. I remember an article of Governor Romney’s in the Washington Post in March where he advocated dispatching American warships to the Eastern Mediterranean. Shooting from the hip on these matters is a very dangerous sport to be engaged in. And I think that drawing Israel into this campaign is detrimental to Israeli interests, and I regret that one of the candidates is doing this.”

Romney has criticized the Obama administration’s relationship with Israel throughout the campaign, claiming that the president has “thrown allies like Israel under the bus.” Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan described Obama’s treatment of Israel as “indifference bordering on contempt.” In this week’s debate in which Romney echoed many of Obama’s views, the former governer used Israel to try to differentiate their positions. Romney said that there has been “turmoil with Israel” under President Obama. But Halevy says the Obama administration has been fine: “On the practical side, the United States has been very supportive of Israel during President Barack Obama’s administration — both financially and strategically, we have received a lot of support.”

Just today, Halevy wrote an op-ed in the New York Times directed at Romney’s “under the bus” comments, saying that U.S. pressure on Israel “has come from Republican presidents, not Democratic ones.”

Israeli officials and politicians, like Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres, have repeatedly said that the U.S.-Israeli relationship is in good shape under the Obama administration. In July, Barak, Israel’s defense minister, told CNN: “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.”

Halevy’s comments published today follow an interview he gave on Sunday to Al-Monitor in which he said of Romney: “What Romney is doing is mortally destroying any chance of a resolution without war.” In the same interview, Halevy lauded President Obama’s approach: “Obama does think there is still room for negotiations. It’s a very courageous thing to say in this atmosphere.”

Efraim Halevy, former chief of Israel’s spy agency the Mossad, said in two separate interviews on Sunday and Monday that President Obama’s approach toward Iran has been “courageous” and “brave.” Halevy told Al-Monitor that: “Obama does think there is still room for negotiations. It’s a very courageous thing to say in this atmosphere.” Halevy contrasted the approach with Mitt Romney’s:

HALEVY: Negotiating with Iran is perceived as a sign of beginning to forsake Israel. That is where I think the basic difference is between Romney and Obama. What Romney is doing is mortally destroying any chance of a resolution without war. Therefore when [he recently] said, he doesn’t think there should be a war with Iran, this does not ring true. It is not consistent with other things he has said.

Halevy also acknowledged the impact of recent sanctions. During a conversation on Israeli radio on Monday, the former spy chief attributed Iran’s recent economic problems to the sanctions passed by the Obama administration. He told Al-Monitor: “The sanctions have been very effective. They are beginning to really hurt.” These comments reinforce a speech that Halevy delivered at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. last Thursday, where he said: “The fact of the matter is the sanctions have not brought the end to the program but sanctions are hurting very much.” Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, has also said that sanctions against Iran have been “effective.” Halevy’s statements undermine the Romney campaign’s claim that President Obama’s handling of the Iran issue has been ineffective and that Romney would be better at the “negotiating table.”

Halevy himself urged negotiations, saying to Al-Monitor: “I realized that dialogue with an enemy is essential. There is nothing to lose. Although the claim was, if you talk to them, you legitimize them. But by not talking to them, you don’t de-legitimate them. So this convinced me, that we all have been very superficial in dealing with our enemies. Not everything you try succeeds. But you have to be willing to try.” His comments come on the heels of a New York Times report that Iran and the U.S. have agreed “in principle” to direct negotiations with each other. When Romney was asked if he supported such an approach, he refused to answer.

Responding to the report, Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s strategic affairs minister, said that Israel would support direct negotiations if they could halt the nuclear program in Iran.

The Obama administration, along with its European allies, believe that an Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat and have implemented several rounds of crippling sanctions aimed at finding a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. The sanctions have resulted in an estimated loss of $48 billion a year in Iranian oil revenues. U.S., Israeli and U.N. officials have repeatedly pointed out that Iran has not yet decided to pursue a nuclear weapon.

“Tell Me How This Ends,” a war game released today by the Truman National Security Project, begins with a message on the screen: “Intelligence now indicates that your red line has been crossed.” The game simulates several scenarios that might follow an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities with the game’s player taking on the role of the U.S. President. The title is based on David Petraeus’ words as the Iraq war began in 2003. Michael Breen, Truman Project’s executive director, believes the question should be asked once more, this time about Iran. “General Petraeus’ simple question is one that every leader should ask before committing U.S. troops to battle,” Breen said in a press release.

The game features distinct scenarios and potential consequences of an attack: high gas prices, rising military costs and civilian casualties. Former high level U.S. defense officials consulted on the game’s creation. Following every decision, your advisers, including secretary of state, national security adviser, and chief of staff, greet you with advice: proceed with caution, escalate, wind down your presence. Video reports from around the Middle East detail casualties and the Iranian response. Current oil prices and military spending per day are displayed on the side of your screen. Not surprisingly, no matter what the player’s decisions, the game doesn’t end well.

Stephanie Dreyer, Truman’s media relations director, hopes the game spurs: “an honest discussion of both the cost of war and the exit strategy from any military engagement in Iran.” Dreyer adds that: “policy simulations are very common inside the D.C. beltway and we wanted to bring that kind of experience to people across the country. It’s our goal to accurately simulate the choices a President would face during a military engagement with Iran and provide players with the choices and costs.” The organization will air two ads Monday evening on CNN, one before the presidential debate, and one afterward. Justin Ford, an Iraq war veteran, says in the ad: “There’s a lot of guys on TV, talking about a war with Iran, nobody can tell me how this ends. My friends and I think we deserve an answer.” Watch it:

In September, a bipartisan group of former U.S. defense and diplomatic officials published a report laying out some of the consequences of an attack on Iran. The report, which served as the basis for the Truman Project’s game, states:

“Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe, with problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out regional war.”

The Obama administration has repeatedly made it clear that a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to world security. Together with its European allies, the Obama administration has enforced several rounds of crippling sanctions against Iran. At this point, U.S., Israeli, and U.N. officials do not believe Iran has made the decision to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Efraim Halevy, former director of Israeli spy agency the Mossad, said today that he disagreed with the idea of setting so-called “red lines” for Iran’s nuclear program. Talk of placing red lines on Iran’s nuclear program is meant to refer a point at which the Islamic Republic would presumably be met with a military response should it decide to cross. Halevy emphasized a need for leadership from “people who are solution oriented and not war oriented.”

Speaking at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., Halevy said:

“I think the use of the red line creates clarity on the one hand and it also creates a commitment that not always can be met. And therefore, I personally felt that the use of a red line is not conducive to the ultimate aim.”

Halevy’s words come on the heels of comments from Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli army official, who said in an event at the Center for American Progress last Friday that he was against red lines because they “provoke the other party to try and check the limits of his maneuverability…so all they do usually is that they reach the red line and cross it a little bit and see what the direct action is.”

Halevy said that a military strike on Iran should only be a “last resort” and that “our aim should be to win the war without firing one shot.” He added this should be done with: “Sanctions, more sanctions, more sanctions and many other things. … The fact of the matter is the sanctions have not brought the end to the program but sanctions are hurting very much.”

Halevy joins other former Israeli officials who have voiced discomfort with setting red lines. In September, Dan Halutz, a former chief of staff for the Israeli Defense Army, said: “I don’t believe in red line policies, because when you’re stating something at time 1, it might not be the same at time 2…when you are saying red line, you’re claiming you can draw a line based on what the other side is doing.”

And the consequences of potential military action in the case that these red lines are crossed are troubling. A bipartisan group of former U.S. military and diplomatic officials recently published a report that detailed the possible consequences of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities:

“Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe, with problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out regional war.”

The report says that an attack would not successfully destroy Iran’s program and instead would only delay it and “increase” the chances of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The Obama administration, focused on securing a diplomatic solution, has pursued and enforced crippling sanctions against Iran. The sanctions have had a forceful impact on the Iranian economy. Officials across the world, in the U.S., the U.N. and Israel, believe Iran is not yet made the decision to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Halevy praised the relationship between the Obama administration and Israel, describing it as “very good” and noting that “in the last four years we have had a relationship with the US on the practical issues which are important to Israel; the like of which we have never had with almost any other administration.”

The Romney campaign’s lead foreign policy adviser Dan Senor in an interview that aired on NPR this morning did not dispute the validity of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s warnings about a military attack on Iran. During the interview, Senor, as he has previously, criticized the Obama administration for publicly discussing the potential consequences of an attack on Iran. Pointing to a recent speech Panetta gave delivering those warnings, Senor claimed that such discussion by the administration leads Iran and U.S. allies to think that “we are absolutely not serious, that the credibility of the threat [of military action against Iran] is not there.”

But when pressed about whether or not the Obama administration’s points were true or not, Senor dodged:

SENOR: The president says the military option is on the table but then Defense Secretary Panetta at a security conference, which was widely covered, he walked through all the problems with a military action, that there would be backlash in the region, that it may not be successful, you may not actually be able to wipe up the program, you just might delay it, that there will be economic repercussions.

HOST STEVE INSKEEP: Was he wrong about those things?

SENOR: Secretary Panetta has said that on many occasions. Our only view is, one obviously has to consider these very things he’s talking about. And if you want to talk to our allies about it, you absolutely should, but do it behind closed doors. By broadcasting it in public the way the administration has done, it has sent one message to Tehran, which is that we are absolutely not serious, that the credibility of the threat is not there, and it has sent the exact same message to our allies in Israel and in the Gulf Arab countries that are worried about a nuclear Iran.

INSKEEP: Is Panetta wrong about those concerns that he raised?

SENOR: I mean I would let him explain, you know, the reasoning behind each one of those.

In his December 2011 speech at the Brookings Institution, Panetta said that a potential Israeli strike on Iran “might postpone [Iran] maybe one, possibly two years.” Panetta also laid out other possible complications of an Israeli strike on Iran: Iranians might rally around the government, blame would inevitably be placed on the U.S. and an escalation leading to the loss of “many lives” could follow.

Other experts have echoed Panetta’s comments. Just last month Mike Hayden, former CIA director in the George W. Bush administration, told an Israeli newspaper that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would “only set the Iranians back some time and actually push them to do that which it is supposed to prevent, getting nuclear weapons.” In addition, a bipartisan group of military and defense experts, including Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser, in a recent report echoed Panetta’s comments, saying that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel would only delay Iran’s nuclear program by two years. It’s not only American officials: Meir Dagan, former head of Israel’s spy agency, has also said that a military strike would only “delay” the Iranian nuclear program.

President Obama has repeatedly said that a military option on Iran’s nuclear program is not a “bluff” and that he is against a “containment” strategy for Iran’s nuclear program. However, the Obama administration, following current intelligence that says Iran has yet to decide whether to build nuclear weapons, is sticking to a diplomatic track for the time being, a move it sees as the “best and most permanent” way to end the nuclear crisis with Iran.

Two Israeli experts on Friday questioned the necessity of setting “red lines” for the Iranian nuclear program — the point Iran’s nuclear program reaches that would trigger a U.S. military attack.

Meir Javedanfar, a lecturer at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, and Shlomo Brom, a former high-ranking official in the Israeli army, were responding to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech last month at the U.N. (and some on the American right), in which he called for the international community to set a clear “red line” on the Iranian nuclear program. Both Javedanfar and Brom spoke at a Center for American Progress event on the status of the U.S.-Israel cooperation on Iran.

Brom said that “red lines” are counterproductive, claiming that they “provoke the other party to try and check the limits of his maneuverability…so all they do usually is that they reach the red line and cross it a little bit and see what the direct action is.” In other words, he said, “you cause the other party to try to test you.” Brom also made the point that “red lines” typically tend to be anything but rigid as circumstances and “other considerations” can change. In the long run “red lines,” according to Brom, only serve to make the country that creates them “lose credibility” with the other party.

Javedanfar, an Iranian-Israeli expert, said that the importance of “red lines” is overblown and that President Obama has already stated that he doesn’t support a containment policy for Iran, ruling out the need to publicly discuss additional “red lines.” Besides, he said, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors currently in Iran would make the international community aware if the Iranians push to enrich uranium to higher purity needed for a bomb:

“It’s going to be very obvious. They will need that enriched uranium in Fordow to make a bomb and if they want to use it they are going to have to kick out the IAEA inspectors; and there we will all be aware that the Iranian regime has started making a bomb.”

To Javedanfar, the presence of inspectors and President Obama’s rejection of a containment strategy makes any criticism of the administration’s lack of “red lines” a moot point. Instead, Javedanfar says the focus should be elsewhere: “It would serve Israeli and U.S. interests more if we talked about Iran…instead of having this conversation and having diagrams being drawn in the U.N.,” adding that the Iranians are clearly “treading very carefully” and that, “red lines are important but cooperation is far more important.”

The Israeli experts’ assessments echoed that of Former Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff and Air Force Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, who said recently that red-lines are counterproductive.

The Obama administration, along with its European allies, determine that an Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat and have implemented several rounds of crippling sanctions aimed at finding a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. The sanctions have resulted in an estimated loss of $48 billion a year in oil revenues, or 10 percent of the economy and $133 million a day in oil money. One oil analyst told Bloomberg that sanctions have “been an unqualified success.” U.S., Israeli and U.N. officials have repeatedly pointed out that Iran has not yet decided to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign has updated its website to include a new so-called “red line” on Iran’s nuclear program. Previously, the site’s Iran section claimed that a President Romney would not tolerate Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon. The updated version of the site hinges on Iran’s nuclear weapons capability:

Below is a screenshot from a Google cached version of Romney’s site from September 29, 2012:

The shift is significant because it represents a much lower threshold for potential military action. Rather than disallowing the actual possession of, or run up to, a nuclear weapon, Romney’s position instead rules out Iran developing the ability to produce a bomb, which arguably, Iran is currently able to do. President Obama has said that it is his administration’s policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, leaving no option off the table in doing so.

Romney has shifted back and forth on the “capability” issue. His campaign advisers first floated the preventing a nuclear weapons capable Iran policy back in July. But Romney walked that back last month, saying his policy is the same as Obama’s, only to reverse it back to where his advisers laid it out in July. Now it appears that the Romney camp is officially settling on “capability” as the website change suggests. Moreover, the Romney camp, like the Senate just last month, doesn’t define “capability,” which is troublesome as various lawmakers in favor of this language have offered a wide array of meanings resulting in corresponding wide array of “red-lines” to initiate military strikes.

A recent Institute for Science and International Security report has determined that Iran has shortened the time it would take for it to achieve the ability to process uranium up to the ninety percent enrichment level that would make it weapons-grade. However, the same report notes that such a move would be detected by both the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) and the United States. One of the few possible reasons given by ISIS that Iran would move towards weapons-grade uranium enrichment would be a preemptive strike against its nuclear program.

Romney’s shift also comes at a time when Israel is pulling back its threats of military action against Iran’s program, having concluded that the IAEA’s assessment that Iran has slowed progress towards a nuclear weapon is correct. (HT: Foreign Policy)