A nuclear Iran is by far the biggest threat to Israel. A mildly unfriendly US president is nothing in comparison.

Mr Cohen who does not have a college education or an ounce of horse sense writes an op ed from the pages of the NY Times offering unwanted advice to Bibi. And why does he do this? So Obama can be reelected. You have to come up with better reasons than that one Cohen. And shame on you for offering this ill advised advice.

Quit the whining and grow a pair.

Thank you for spilling away all the beans. You said a mouthful. So, Israel, the Israelis and its PM. DO have a big say and big weight in American decision making. You are right, they do. Knowing how much Obama and Netanyahu dislike each other, you really wish our PM would do just what you suggest he shouldn't. You can't stand Obama either, can you? Frankly old chap, I don't blame you.

I am not surprised by Cohen's column. What surprises me is that Ynetnews puts it on their front page! Who cares what some columnist in the NY TImes says? At best this shows a complete lack of understanding by Ynet of how left leaning are most of the Times columnists, particularly Cohen. At worst, Ynet knows this but publicizes it anyway, perhaps to convince the Israeli public that Bibi is dangerous. Whatever the case, it's not news what Cohen writes, and it certainly doesn't belong on the front page of the web site.

Going with the friends is a good idea! And what are the administrations of western countries, first and foremost, the U.S. doing? What about going with the friend, Israel and what about stopping to trade Israels interests for cheap Arab favors? Too many times, the Obama administration gave a **** for Israeli interests! What about a little support on the issues around the stateless Arabs? What about pressuring the Arabs to take their share of the responsibility on this refugee problem? What intends the U.S. to do on Iran? How could we have come so far, that Iran is short before building the bomb? We already know what Iran is thinking about negotiations and how they are dealing with the results of negotiations. Could it be, that the Obama administration vetoed the anti-settlement resolution because of domestic considerations? Could it be, that the Obama administration still is dissatisfied with Russia's and China's behavior in the UNSC and is somewhat stuck in trading Israeli interests for influence on Arab countries? In the recent weeks and months there are too many unfriendly activities behind the scene. And they don't become friendly, if Obama repeats the word "unshakable" a thousand times.

With Holders guns.

we all know what expect israel if obama is reelected in november he will press israel to make conncession to the palestinian terrorist !! it will be his last 4 years in office he will do whatever he can not to attack iran

Clearly Obama has been the most ant-Israel pres. ever. As Cohen said, would be constrained in his criticism of an Israeli attack during an election year. After he is re-elected there is no telling what he would do. U.S. & Israeli intelligence estimate Iran could have nukes by the end of the year. This would be a disaster for everyone. Israeli cannot wait for Obama to run out the clock.

Roger Cohen has been wrong so many times he is not taken seriously by anyonr. Shortly before the Iranian people voted against the regime Cohen praised the regime as a stable peaceful one. He declared Iran as a delightful place for Jews to live. Given Cohen's record the ambassador he quotes is most likely a figment of his imagination.

and no complains. Ah but this might Jeopardize Obama's reelection. Obama made many mistakes toward Israel he suggested Abu Mazen to stick to the argument of "HALT CONSTRUCTION ON SETTLEMENTS" And Abu Nazen very cleverly took his advice. Israel froze Construction for 10 months and Palestininas beated arround the bush. Never came to start talks seriously they came one month brefore the ending of the ten month period and pretended that Israel will extend the period...WHY? The second Biggest maistake Obama made was to presign Israel future borders based on the 67 lines intead of letting the parties negotiate, then he tried to fix it by talking about land swaps. Not even resolution 242 talks about 1967 borders, instead, mentions "secure borders" big difference hu?

Roger Cohen was always stating how good the Jews had it in Islamic Iran till it wasn't Jews getting persecuted but when Iranians tried to revolt over the elections.Then he started yelling how undemocratic Iran was.It took muslims being persecuted to get him to say something against Iran. How long will it take for Jews to learn that The N.Y.T. is anti Israel in the extreme

Wlease Woger!! God save us everyone! Roger cohen and Tiny Tom Freidman the flacid but ever stuffy from the over fed po,posity buffet table they seamless set, again sub in for each other. Not separated at birth these two, who have negatively rearranged their own legitimacy and nuked what shreds of credibility remained. Can no one relieve us of these preening self satisfied imps of a once and again stalinist rag? Happily they are self limiting as either and or continue their impotent assault on Israel that no journalistic blue pill can stiffen.

Israel has no choice but to bomb Iran , Yes America is safer since Obama has been in office it would be stupid to bomb your own brother, the only thing Obama is doing is foot dragging while his brothers get stronger , Israel has no choice they got to do it again on there own remember Iraq and Syria nuclear plants.

I agree that Israel or anyone else must not interfere with our elections, but what exactly Bibi must be thankful for to Obama, Mr. Cohen - I am guessing, for not being insulted by Obama as often as he could've been otherwise.

Mr Cohen values Democrat politics over Israeli survival (and US security ). His really stupid position (giving Iran a green light ) is dangerous to Israe ,the Gulf States Saudi Arabia ,and in the long run --western civilization. How typical of the NY Times.

the new york times has only one goal. if a few million jews might be incinerated, who cares?? btw: it has come out that the reason obama is refusing to apply real sanctions on iran is because it would increased gas prices and affect his re-election

All the arguments raised by Roger Cohen are valid but are they reasonable from the standpoint of the security & perhaps the survival of Israel? The most recent estimates of Iran`s point of no return have dropped to a year but that is of course a guess given the secrecy of the nuclear program being labored in deep moutain tunnels. Effective new sanctions have so far been avoided by the West for fear of economic & political repercussions at home & the old ones are flaunted by the likes of Russia & China. What is more important: the political future of Obama & Netanyahu ( even the short term US-Israel relations) or the safety of 8 million Israelis? Once the elections are over what guaranty is there that the Western politicians will not again procrastinate & kick the can down the road to avoid being blamed for the immediate economic & security consequences of warfare with Iran? Panetta & others have stated how long they are prepared to wait for the `definitive`red point crossing: the disruption of the oil shipments or the day the Iranians decide to build the bomb. But no effective steps have been implemented to stop or delay the preparations for that day & can that day be even detected with any precision? This is an open time frame for indefinte delay. Iran with Panetta's warning is not likely to go beyond threats of blocking the Hormuz straits since it gives the country more time to progress & time is still on its side.

whether he meant it or not, mr cohen is telling the truth - if israel bombed iran's nuclear facilities, president obama would indeed be stymied. he would be "stymied" in his ability to retaliate and punish israel, because he's in the midst of a re-election campaign, where he can't afford to lose the votes of the pro-israel evangelical christians. and he would be "stymied" in his campaigning, by being shown up for what he is, an appeaser of the jihadists, who is afraid to do what is necessary. and by reducing his chances of a second term, an israeli strike now would also "stymie" his plans for forcing israel into a dangerous "piece" treaty, as a second-term president with nothing to lose. yes, president obama would be most displeased. but he isn't the one sitting in the crosshairs of a nuclear-armed iran.

Obama should have never allowed Iran to get this far. All omens say Obama cannot be relied upon and has messed up with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Hezbullah, Hamas and Syria.

Or at least give Bibi a green light and/or look the other way when he does decide to do something. What's the problem?? On the other hand, Iran will probably dig it's own grave by trying to close the Straits of Hormuz or ambushing a US warship.

you can't take the diaspora, pleasing jew mentality from some jews... t. friedman included. obama has been the most hostile anti- israel pres. since j.carter. his policies and demaenor towards bibi and israel reach new lows. israel must take careof its own future as it shall be longer then obama, the one termer.

do for Obama to win the elections.......

Say thank you? For what? Funding left wing NGO's to overthrow Bibi and to erode Israel diplomatic stature around the world. Obama and the US funding the Israeli social protest? US Renigueing on previous diplomatic deals? Taking the first hit in the Yom Kippur War?

What an audacious statement: that Israel should tie her own hands so that Obama can get re-elected. It's all about Obama. Roger Cohen and the NY Times are still holding on to the myth of Obama-as-Messiah. They are probably the last demographic in America to do so. It was the NY Times-reading liberal intellectual elite who brought us Obama in the first place, and it is they who are the last to support him. Normal people, meaning everyone else in America, gave up on Obama long ago.

Mr. Netanyahu was not elected by the Israeli people to appease Obama. He was elected to protect the State of Israel, and vicariously, the Jewish people. The real issue is whether an attack on Iran is necessary to protect Israel, not whether Obama will be happy or not. By the way, it is time for the American Jews to stop their knee jerk support for every Democrat regardless of their support for the survival of the only Jewish state in the world.