The article has a series of wrong assumptions: A) Obama has no interest in stopping Iran, as can be clear from Obama's lack of effort. How many "final" deadlines did Iran break? 3,4,7? So Iran doesn't give Bibi a reason to be nice to Obama. B) The U.S. being friendly to Israel will have no effect on Israel's decision to strike, since some in Israel (like Bibi) consider the threat to be existential. Nor does Israel need to go via Iraqi/US airspace (Saudi will cooperate). So Obama has no Iran-based incentive to be nice to Bibi either. In fact, he must relish the opportunity to finally look tough. Did you read the Dowd NYT article? C) Bibi will look very weak and indecisive if he back down over Jerusalem. The government will not survive. D) So the only possible compromise would be that Israel continues building in Jerusalem but gives in to a few of the US other demands'. However, it's unlikely Obama will accept this, which means we're in to a rough ride.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
French FM says Syria's Assad bares full responsibility for breaking Aleppo ceasefire (Reuters)
from the article: It's too bad Netanyahu and Obama didn't stop and think first