Is Obama Friend or Foe to Israel?

 

Dan Friedman writes:

[All day I was toying with the idea of sending around one or more of the stories about Israel’s supposed deal with Azerbaijan to use their airfields as a staging area for an attack on Iran. But I kept asking myself who really benefits from the story – and never pressed “send.” Now I have an answer to my question, and as I suspected the beneficiary (and source) of the story was Israel’s “best friend,” Barack Obama. df]

 

Israelis Suspect Obama Media Leaks to Prevent Strike on Iran -  ABC News – 3/29/2012

JERUSALEM - Two reports today about Iran's nuclear program and the possibility of an Israeli military strike have analysts in Israel accusing the Obama administration leaking information to pressure Israel not to bomb Iran and for Iran to reach a compromise in upcoming nuclear talks.

 

See also Ron Ben Yishai at YNet, via EoZ:

Is US Acting to sabotage an Israeli strike on Iran?

 

Read it all. And don't forget: Whatever happens, the fact that the President's name is Hussein has nothing to do with it.

 

Comments

[Mannie Sherberg]

Obama may detest the British, but that doesn't stop him from following the British foreign policy of the 19th century -- which was best articulated by Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies ... our interests are eternal and perpetual." That would make it okay, in his mind, for Obama to betray an old ally like Israel. The big difference between Obama and Palmerston, though, is that Palmerston was willing to dump allies in the interest of the Bitish Empire, while Obama is willing to dump Israel in the interest of his re-election. Palmerston -- a statesman -- served the empire of which he was the chief executive; Obama -- a hack politician -- serves himself. For Palmerston, stabbing an ally in the back was a state imperative; for Obama, stabbing an ally in the back is strictly personal. What a moral dwarf this guy is.