Israeli officials responded positively, albeit cautiously, to proposed talks between Iran and several United Nations member states, despite unsuccessful past attempts.

The so-called 5+1 group is made up of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- China, the United States, Britain, Russia and France -- plus Germany.

"There will be no one happier than us -- and the prime minister said this in his own voice -- if it emerges that in these talks Iran will give up on its military nuclear capability," Yaakov Amidror, Israel's National Security Council chief and a key adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told Israeli Radio Wednesday.

"There is no doubt that Iran is agreeing to talks because it is feeling squeezed by the sanctions and because it understands that there is more than one alternative on the table," Amidror said.

During his stay in Washington, Netanyahu said that Israel could not wait for much longer before taking actions against Iran, indicating the urgency of the issue for the Jewish state.

The news came only a day after Netanyahu returned from meeting in Washington with U.S. President Barack Obama and senior American officials in talks focused on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

Iran claims that its program is only for producing electricity, while Israel, the United States and several other Western countries argue that its true intent is to produce nuclear weapons.

That contention was strengthened after the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, said earlier that "Iran is not telling us everything."

Analysts told Xinhua that, despite the failures of the previous rounds of negotiations with Iran, the Israeli government would, and should, encourage the new trial even if the chance of success is slim.

Meir Javedanfar, an expert on Iran at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, said that while he was not overtly optimistic that there would be a breakthrough, "this is something that must be done, we must explore the diplomatic channels and hope for the best."

Javedanfar argued that while "the Israeli government is pessimistic about the diplomatic outcome," talking to Iran has two distinct advantages: at a bare minimum, talks show that the door for diplomacy is open, and always strengthens the moderates against those in the Iranian regime who believe in confrontation.

But Javedanfar also emphasized the importance of economic sanctions. "By keeping the door of negotiations and diplomacy open, then at any time that the Iranian regime sees that the economic price of the nuclear program is beginning to endanger its survival and it needs to save face by negotiating, then we should make it as easy as possible for them to do so," he said.

His caution was matched by Dr. Ephraim Asculai of Tel Aviv University, who on Thursday told Xinhua that "No talks ever resulted in anything tangible, so I would be very careful in giving very big hope to the talks."

Asculai pointed to a swap deal with Turkey in 2010, negotiated at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, under which Iran would store its enriched uranium in Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel. The leadership in Tehran, however, turned down the offer.

"On the other hand, if the Iranians will for once be serious about it, it could lead somewhere -- which is what everyone wants, " Asculai said.

One of the major problems for the international community in previous negotiations was a lack of leverage on Iran. However, that might be changing now, as the European Union recently imposed an import ban on Iranian oil, the main source of income for the Islamic republic, and several of its member states banned mutual banking ties with Iran.

Asculai said that while the tougher economic sanctions are important, a wider approach is needed that does not just focus on the economy.

"Not only economic sanctions," he said, but "political sanctions, embargoes, not accepting them in international forums -- which is a means of pressuring their dignitaries. I think they wouldn't appreciate losing their standing in the world when no one wants to meet them," Asculai said.

Additionally, the notion of a possible Israeli military strike has of late been discussed more openly and often, especially in the Israeli media.

"Military action is also not bad, because once they understand that people could be serious about it, it could be a kind of pressure," Asculai said, adding that when the negotiations do start, it is pivotal that an agreement be quickly reached, even a partial deal, because otherwise the risk is that the momentum will be lost, and the parties lose faith in the process.