Obama backs U.S. away from Israel: what it could mean

Obama's recent remarks and actions suggest the United States is trying to put some distance between itself and Israel in terms of their relationship. This is almost unprecedented. Obama, thus far, is the least friendly American President to Israel since Carter, a borderline anti-semite. Prime Minister Netanyahu returned to Israel and convened the Cabinet to figure out what to make of all this.

Imagine you are Prime Minister Netanyahu. You are the head of the Likud Party, the more nationalist and assertive party while your opposition is the more dovish and prefers a soft-handed approach. You got to power because of your record on security and tough rhetoric. You have been rebuffed by the American President, your closest ally and the most important foreign policy item. You have returned with no agreement, a behind closed doors meeting, which is a humiliation. To not have a public talk or a press conference alongside the American President demonstrates that Israel is no longer considered the close ally of the United States.

The settlements in Jerusalem is a central part of your domestic policy. There is no compromise on that, you cannot back down. Your own party would fire you if you agreed to Obama's demands that settlements stop being built in East Jersualem, your capital. So what do you do?

Israelis are upset there is no agreement. They are starting to question your abilities. Politically you have been weakened by this. What to do...How can a hawkish Prime Minister regain the support and respect of his people? Hmmm...

Netanyahu does not agree with Obama and politically cannot backdown on the settlement question. Netanyahu has to feel he cannot trust the United States to back Israel on any issue, in particular security. He has to think that it is likely that Israel may have to face security threats in the future alone, without US support and even face possible sanctions from the UN. The U.S. will not stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, they can't even get sanctions. Iran will have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb and they have the missile technology to deliver. They have been talking about wiping Israel off the map for years.

You are a hawkish prime minister in need of some momentum and positive results, you could strike Iran first. No one else is going to stop Iran. the UN, the US, Russia or China. You know they want weapons and you know they are close, you cannot tolerate that. You must strike. It will cause international uproar and may lead to condemnation from President Obama and the US. But the US is no longer a reliable ally anyway...

You could try to persuade Obama and work with them to get the US back on your side. It didn't work this time but you could try again. That would be quite humbling considering how the last meeting went. He has nothing he can offer Obama and the US to get them back on his side. Is there a middle road? No. Obama and Netanyahu clearly are not on the same page and the likelihood of working together is low right now.

Netanyahu has to ask himself, does he have much to lose by striking Iran pre-emptively? Relations with US are already chilly, the Europeans and most of the UN doesn't like what Israel is doing now, Iran could strike back. That is really the only issue, if the strike succeeds can Israel defend itself from Iran. The U.S. would have to step in to avert a war. Wouldn't they?

That is what is likely being discussed. What happens after the initial strike? Can Israel do what it has done in Iraq and Syria? A quick strike, then back away. War did not erupt when Israel struck the nuclear facilities of those two countries. Will Iran be any different. Guessing from their crazy rhetoric, yes.

Iran will try to aggressively arm its proxy groups (Hezbollah and Hamas) but in the end they can't destroy Israel through conventional means. Is Netanyahu, a hawkish Prime Minister, willing to do something that could erupt an open and intense conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah, maybe even Iran itself? What will their neighbors do? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. They may condemn the attack but privately, will be happy to see their Iranian nuke program destroyed or at least set back. Syria could be the lone problem. But Israel bombed Syria a year or two ago and now is negotiating a peace treaty with them to settle the Golan Heights dispute. Would an Iran strike kill that? Would Syria honor their alliance and fight Israel over this?

My thoughts? A rift has been steadily growing between Syria and Iran. Syria appears more willing to join the more moderate Middle East and the more Sunni. In Iraq, Syria and Iran are on opposite sides of the political developments there. Odds of Syria declaring war or joining Iran? Moderate to low. Odds of Iran invading Israel? Very low. Odds of a war with Hamas and Hezbollah? Very high. Would Netanyahu, a hawkish leader with his strength in security, be willing to start a war to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? The answer is yes.

In my mind, Netanyahu would have to argue that unless the United States can end the Iranian nuclear weapons program and allow him to use it as a morale booster, he will need to move soon on his own. A strike on Iran is becoming a more practical option for him. This spat with Obama has only increased its practicality.

Obama's desire to pull the U.S. away from the Middle East will leave the countries in that region to solve their own security problems. Their solutions are not as nice and peaceful as ours. By pulling back, Obama is potentially encouraging countries in that region to act unilaterally to protect themselves. Not a good idea.