WASHINGTON — The window for diplomatic solutions to Iran’s enrichment of uranium may be closing.

Earlier this month, Israel conducted training missions over the Mediterranean Sea and Greek territory, the New York Times reported on its Web site last night. The tests were conducted at the same distance required of Israeli jets to fly to Iran, and included helicopters in case any jets were downed and pilots had to be rescued, according to the Times.

The military training missions come as Israeli officials are speaking more openly about ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Earlier this month, the Islamic Republic refused an offer from the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council to build a peaceful nuclear energy facility in exchange for halting the enrichment of uranium in Natanz.

In an interview this week with Germany’s Der Spiegel, Prime Minister Olmert crossed an important line with regard to Iran and floated at least the prospect of a military strike. When asked what could be done about the program, Mr. Olmert said, “There are many things that can be done economically, politically, diplomatically, and militarily.”

When asked by Der Spiegel if Israel could live with a nuclear Iran, Mr. Olmert said: “No. I don’t think, considering the nature of the Iranian regime, that Israel can be expected to live under the threat that they may use it.”

Also, Washington is closing ranks on the Iran issue. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy this week published a task force report on the American-Israeli partnership in light of Iranian proliferation. Among the signatories on the report were top aides to both presidential campaigns, including a former national security adviser, Tony Lake for Senator Obama, and a former director of central intelligence, James Woolsey for Senator McCain.

The paper proposes that prevention of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is a superior option to the prospect of deterring the Iranians once they get one: “Americans should recognize that deterrence is, in Israeli eyes, an unattractive alternative to prevention, because, if deterrence fails, Israel would suffer terribly. The consequence is that any suggestion that a policy of deterrence is America’s preferred option only reinforces the idea among many Israelis that, in the end, they may be left alone to bear the brunt of the Iranian nuclear threat.”