Please try to honestly answer the following question, assuming that President Barack Obama faces two alternatives.
One would be to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program and avert a future threat that could hit Israel, thereby prompting oil prices to skyrocket and causing a serious blow to the US economy.
The second alternative would be to speak harshly and attempt to tighten the sanctions, yet in practice turn a blind eye to Iran’s progress and the fact that it has passed the point of no return, while persevering the stability of his administration and winning a second term in office, even though this would jeopardize Israel’s future.
Which alternative would Obama choose?
Let’s ask this question in a different way: Is there a sane Israeli out there who thinks an American president would forego a second term in office, or at least threaten his prospects gravely, in order to safeguard the Jewish state? And even if someone believes this would be the case, can one count on it?
I heard Ms. Tzipi Livni saying that our relationship with America was better in the past, and hence Israel was safer. I also heard commentators longing for the Bush Administration. Yet we must not cling to the past. We must not count on old understandings and dying pledges.
It is possible that once upon a time things were better, and it’s also possible that once upon a time it was easier to destroy a nuclear reactor in a foreign country. It is even possible that things will always be easier with a Republican Administration in place.
However, we do not live in the past, and we an either count on a president whose personal interests (temporary quiet) contradict Israel’s interests (long-term quiet) or decide our children’s future via a bold, complex operation.
We can either choose the second option, or wait patiently until we sustain the gravest military blow ever known by Israel. What sounds better to you?