AFP reports that

A top Iranian cleric made a rare criticism of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s verbal attacks on Israel on Wednesday, saying a foreign policy of “coarse slogans” was not in the national interest.

Hassan Rowhani, a former top nuclear negotiator who still holds several influential positions, said that Iran needed to show more flexibility and desire for dialogue in its dealings with the international community.

“Does foreign policy mean expressing coarse slogans and grandstanding?” Rowhani asked in a speech to a foreign policy conference in Tehran.

“This is not a foreign policy. We need to find an accommodating way to decrease the threats and assure the interests of the country.”

His comments came a week after the latest verbal attack on Israel by Ahmadinejad, who described the Jewish state as a “dirty microbe” and “savage animal” in a speech to a public rally….

Rowhani warned starkly: “If the international community thinks that a country wants to play troublemaker and eliminate others, it will not let the country do this and will confront it.

Clearly, at least some officials in Iran are becoming increasingly wary of an Israeli or an American strike on their nuclear facilities. But what does this really mean? Do these officials want to stop the nuclear program or merely tone down the rhetoric while they forge ahead?

Critical to understanding these issues is an exceptionally revealing speech given by Rowhani on September 30, 2005. Rowhani’s words have  been subjected to a close analysis by the Israeli analyst, Chen Kane, formerly an Israeli atomic energy officia and now of CSIS in Washington. Kane’s conclusions are chilling:

Rowhani suggested that Iran use the technical progress Iran had achieved by the time [his own] speech was delivered to create a nuclear fait accompli. He recommended accelerating Iran’s efforts on the technical front: “If one day we are able to complete the fuel cycle and the world sees that it has no choice, that we do possess the technology, then the situation will be different.”

Rowhani also advise[d] his audience, however, that this objective should be pursued while keeping the avenue for negotiation open, so as to allow Iran to improve its technical capabilities while postponing referral to the Security Council for as long as possible. Warning that Iran should avoid what in fact was to occur after Iran ended its suspension of enrichment activities, Rowhani cautioned, “I think we should not be in a great rush to deal with this issue. We should be patient and find the most suitable time to do away with the suspension. . . . we must move very carefully, in a very calculated manner.”