You are us, and we are you

Protestations of Israel’s very special relationship with the United States are some of the most predictable genuflections of Washington politics, especially in an election year.

So sitting side by side in front of an unlit fire in a frigid feeling Oval office this morning, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama went through the motions. One is left grasping for any hint to what really went on when they met in private.

While the Israeli leader spoke about the right of Israel to defend itself and the shared values of their countries –“we are after all the Little Satan and you are the big Satan…you are us and we are you”- Obama looked as if he had just been listening to Belzebub, not Bibi.

The frisson between them even went beyond what the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz classified as ‘watching porcupines copulate’. In other words, the relationship is prickly.

I have rarely seen the American President look this glum and angry. He appeared to be fuming. Was this just the Monday morning blues or had Bibi Netanyahu reminded his host that when it comes to striking Iran, Washington’s hands are somewhat tied?

Here’s why. Senior administration sources have told me why they think the Israeli government believes that the next few months offer a unique opportunity to strike Iran’s nascent nuclear program. First there is the so called zone of immunity, which is entered when Iran’s underground enrichment facilities are fully up and running and beyond the reach of Israeli or American missiles.

Then there’s the self mutilation of Syria which has kept Iran’s key ally distracted in a fit of murderous self preservation while weakening the political and military link between Damascus and its ugly sisters Hamas and Hezbollah, the two proxies who can easily strike Israel in retaliation. In fact Hamas has recently declared its opposition to the Assad regime’s modus operandi in places like Homs.

But another important reason that could explain Israel’s timing is the same reason why Obama is so vexed by the prospect of a strike this year: the election here in the US. A slim majority of Americans are in favour of a military strike against Iran, if that is the only way of derailing their nuclear weapon’s program. All the Republican candidates apart from Ron Paul now devote a good part of their stump speech to Iran. Mitt Romney for instance flatly declares: “If Obama is re-elected Iran WILL have a nuclear weapon.” The others don’t beg to differ.

In other words Iran has become an election headache for Obama. It would be politically impossible for Obama not to give the Israelis military support and political cover if they decided to strike before election day. Once he has secured another term of office Obama’s hands are less tied and he could turn round to the Israelis and tell them: “not on my watch. The risks are too great!”

All he can do now is plead with them to wait for a tough new sanctions regime to kick in. He can argue with them that a military strike would merely delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions without killing them. It would kick the hornet’s nest without wiping out all the hornets. He could draw attention to the fact that a military strike could further unsettle the effervescent Arab Street and destabilize regimes like Saudi Arabia and Jordan who share Israel’s aversion of a Shiite nuclear bomb.

In the meantime, talk of war in Iran, combined with sanctions, increasing demand in a recovering economy and reduced output from the Middle East all mean that the price of “gas” is creeping perilously towards $4 a gallon. If there was a strike, the price could shoot much higher.

In other words, a strike against Iran creates, to borrow a phrase from another era, too many “known unknowns”. When the election is on a knife edge this is not what an incumbent president needs. No wonder Obama looks like a porcupine scorned.

Follow @mattfrei on Twitter