WASHINGTON — The White House has issued a rare public rebuke of a foreign newspaper article, attacking an Israeli report that said President Bush will bomb Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities by the time he leaves office in 2009.

A statement from the White House said the Jerusalem Post article was “not worth the paper it was written on.” The report, based on anonymous sources, comes on the heels of Mr. Bush’s visit to Jerusalem last week for the 60th anniversary of Israel’s war for independence. During a speech to the Israeli Knesset, Mr. Bush warned against the “false promise” of appeasing Iran, sparking a war of words with the Democratic Party’s likely presidential nominee, Senator Obama.

While Mr. Bush has said of Iran that all military options are on the table, he also has pursued a diplomatic strategy aimed at isolating the Islamic Republic’s banks and Western investments to pressure the regime to end its enrichment of uranium. And the U.N. Security Council has passed three resolutions calling for the suspension of the program since 2006, the year the enrichment standoff began between Iran and the West.

Nonetheless, anonymously sourced reports predicting an imminent American attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities have continued to surface since then.

In private conversations, Mr. Bush has told Israeli and American Jewish leaders that he does not intend “to leave office with Iran’s nuclear program worse than he found it,” said one source who was with the president in Israel. “A lot of the time spent with the prime minister dealt with this issue, a lot of it. I do not believe he committed to any course of action, but he has never said he would bomb Iran. He has said Iran cannot be allowed to become a nuclear power.”

Since 2005, the Bush administration has pursued talks with Iran’s ambassador in Baghdad, though that open channel is limited to Tehran’s role in Iraq. Last week, Defense Secretary Gates said America should pursue more diplomacy with the Iranians, a theme also echoed by Mr. Obama on the campaign trail.

A former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Advisory Board, Richard Perle, said he found it “absurd” that Mr. Bush would disclose plans, on a foreign visit, to attack Iran at the end of his presidency, even to an allied country like Israel.

“The idea that the president would have decided now to take some future military action and then disclose it is beyond belief,” he said. Mr. Perle added that the two obstacles to a bombing campaign against Iran today are the intelligence about the placement of Iran’s diffuse network of nuclear laboratories and enrichment facilities, and that an attack would “solidify the position of the mullahs” who control the country.

Still, Mr. Perle said a bombing campaign that minimized the loss of life and was conducted with proper skill could mitigate the price Iran’s opposition would pay in the wake of such an attack.

“If you were to put me against a wall and ask me what would happen, I would guess the people would rally around the regime after an attack,” he said.

The debate over whether to attack Iran often revolves around Israel, in large part because Iran’s leaders have threatened in public speeches to destroy the country. On the eve of Israel’s 60th anniversary ceremonies, President Ahmadinejad called the Jewish state a “rotting corpse.” Osama bin Laden’s latest video message chides Arab states for failing to destroy Israel.

But the Sunni Arab states, not to mention America’s European allies, are increasingly worried that a nuclear Iran could destabilize the Middle East. Yesterday Britain’s International Institute for Strategic Studies said 13 Middle Eastern countries have begun to pursue nuclear energy programs since Iran’s decision in 2006 to spin its uranium centrifuges. The report warns of a “cascade of proliferation” in the region if Iran continues to enrich uranium in violation of the international community.