Anyone who watch-ed Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama's meetings in Washington last week could not have missed the obvious tension
between the two leaders.
Obama did his best to indicate that relations were normal and that each understood one another when, in fact, their relations are badly strained and each leader understood the other only too well - they do not see eye-to-eye.
If either had the upper hand, I would say that it was Netanyahu which should make observers very nervous.
Netanyahu would like nothing more than the U.S. President stepping forward and declaring in no uncertain terms that the U.S. will bomb Iran if it does not comply with the Western world's (and Israel's) demands for Iran to stop their research toward building nuclear weapons.
President Obama would like nothing better than Israel, especially Netanyahu, to tone down its rhetoric and give diplomacy and sanctions more time to take effect and to give peace a chance.
Obama's approach is that as long as each side is talking, that is positive. Any rash move by either side could set off a horrific regional conflict which could expand into something far more serious.
The Republican Presidential candidates, especially Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, were ratcheting up their rhetoric and putting pressure on Obama and the U.S. Government to take more direct action on Iran through air attacks and fleet build-up in the Persian Gulf to coerce Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs to abandon their desire of building nuclear weapons.
These three presidential candidates would prefer to throw off the gloves, have an all-out bare-knuckle brawl, and the hell with the consequences.
Their argument is that a strike now - and possibly war - will result in a lesser war later on, but wars are wars and no one knows where a small war will lead. Obama's "cooler heads" and "still talking" approach is perhaps the more rational one which deals with present knowns rather than future unknowns.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear that he has not entirely decided on making pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Considering that they had little effect on Iraq in 1981, it appears that they will have even less effect on Iran in 2012. Of course, Netanyahu came to Washington to test U.S. support and hold Obama's feet to the fire.
Having received assurances from President Obama (reluctantly) and complete assurances from hawkish, GOP presidential hopefuls anxious to maximize highly important Jewish-American voter support - present and future - all have come out squarely behind Israel's final decision, whatever it is.
In other words, America has painted itself into a dangerous corner, and should Israel decide to make their attack on Iran without America's blessings, the U.S. will have no alternative but to back Israel and become militarily involved should Iran suddenly retaliate.
In effect, the tail will have wagged the dog.
Attacking Iran's nuclear facilities will be an act of war, and no one but Iran knows how they will respond.
If Iran, Pakistan and North Korea form a defence triad believing that this will be their best defensive hope and decide to use their nuclear weapons, it does not require much to imagine the next
escalations.
In today's situation, many would prefer a U.S. President like Barak Obama or Jimmy Carter - whom Mitt Romney both described as "feckless" - who treat military action as a horrible last resort rather than using gunboat diplomacy.
Wars are costly affairs and, with America's present black-hole $16 trillion debt, another war pushing debt to $20 trillion will perhaps propel the world's greatest superpower into financial
insolvency.
