Obama's Flip Flop: "I have Israel's back"

A poignant video critical of President Obama's recent flip flop on Israel & Iran

UPDATES:

Why Obama fears Israel: Election-year politics dictate policy -Editorial

President Obama offered to give Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu military assistance for a strike on Iran. The catch is, Israel must delay action until after the November election. That’s according to several major news outlets which ran reports based on unnamed sources from Monday’s White House meeting. Whether or not this report is accurate, it underscores the power dynamics behind the nascent crisis with the Islamic Republic.

The alleged U.S. military assistance would include bunker-buster bombs and aerial-refueling aircraft, which Israel would need for a successful military action against Iran’s well-protected nuclear infrastructure. While Mr. Netanyahu can trade his freedom of action for a White House pledge, there is no guarantee it would be fulfilled. Mr. Obama is trying to avoid election-season wild cards that could derail his march to a second term. If he secures re-election in November, the pressure to support Israel would be off and the promised aid need not be delivered.

If Israel strikes Iran before the election, Mr. Obama will have a Hobson’s choice: Support the attack, or do nothing. If he does nothing, it would reinforce the perception that despite his tough talk, Mr. Obama is a weak leader when it comes to dealing with substantive crises. It would hand Republicans a winning issue, and...put Mr. Obama’s re-election in serious jeopardy.

A wounded Iran could lash out at the United States since Tehran would assume America was involved. U.S. interests abroad could be targeted, and there would be potential for a domestic terror attack. This would be the worst-case scenario for the Obama team because it could no longer claim Mr. Obama kept America safe by overseeing the takedown of Osama bin Laden.
 
Given these factors, Mr. Netanyahu’s best move is to demur at the purported U.S. offer of aid dependent on his pushing back the prospective timetable for action. The questions he should ask Mr. Obama are: Is this offer still valid if you lose in November? And can we get it in writing?
[The Washington Times]
*

Lucy and the Football, Iran-Style? -Charles Krauthammer

After ostensibly tough talk about preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration acquiesced this week to yet another round of talks with the mullahs.
These negotiations don't just gain time for a nuclear program about whose military intent the International Atomic Energy Agency is issuing alarming warnings. They make it extremely difficult for Israel to do anything about it (while it still can), lest Israel be universally condemned for having aborted a diplomatic solution.

So what is Obama's real objective? "We're trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel," an administration official told the Washington Post.

The world's greatest exporter of terror (according to the State Department), the systematic killer of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented "Death to America Day" is approaching nuclear capability - and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with annihilation from preempting the threat?
(Washington Post)
*