So far, Obama appears to be following the "talks with pressure" approach endorsed by Dennis Ross. As I understand it, Ross thinks that in order not to appear weak, Obama must accompany any moves toward negotiations with an increasingly aggressive diplomatic and foreign policy posture aimed at isolating and tightening the noose around Iran. This is supposed to get us a more favorable deal down the road. Hence all the recent tough talk and moves to isolate Iran out of the box.

It sounds reasonable. But it is very likely Obama is being set up.

Suppose Obama engages in six months or so of hawkish noose-tightening, but with a background plan for an eventual negotiated settlement. But suppose Israel then attacks Iran before that negotiations ever really gets off the ground. Obama will have left himself no diplomatic ground from which to criticize the Israeli strike. He will have been forced by the tone and substance of his earlier statements, under pain of inconsistency, to bless the attack, and perhaps even join in.

What Obama has to ask himself is this: Is an Israeli attack on Iran good for the United States and the world, or isn't it? If he thinks the answer is "no", then he is going to have to use all the powers of his office to prevent it. Because the new far right government in Israel is going to carry one out unless Obama actively prevents them from doing so.

Presidents and foreign policy leaders in the United States should know by now that the United States is not good at the kind of misdirection and guile the Ross approach recommends. Our system is too open. Everyone abroad can read all they want to about the plans, debates and attitudes of our policy makes, so we are more or less an open book. The Iranians know what we are up to; the Russians know what we are doing to. This preliminary posturing is both a waste of time, and highly risky.

I say let's just embrace that openness, and use it as a strength, instead of playing these old world Machiavellian games. If the Obama administration intends a negotiated settlement with Iran, they should just say publicly, "We seek a negotiated settlement with Iran" and begin negotiations forthwith. Put the pressure on the Iranians to match our open hand with reciprocal moves. Put Barack Obama in a room with that buffoonish bumpkin holocaust denier Ahmadinejad, and see who wins the battle for global opinion. I put my bet on Obama. But by tightening the noose further on Iran, we only make them look like a victim of the big, bad superpower, and undermine global support for our position.

Not a day goes by that someone on the Israeli media advocates an attack on Iran. "Should we do it now. Should we wait. Is it time yet?"

With the world economy disintegrating before our eyes, Netanyahu declares that it is not the economy but Iran that is the greatest, the baddest danger in the whole galaxy. The Israeli right wing and its amen corner in the media, government, and lobbies are putting the chess pieces in place to pull the levers of power in Washington for an attack on Iran.

The Israeli psyche is traumatized by the holocaust which understandably colors their view of the world. Their mind has a repetition compulsion, repeating a traumatic event over and over again. But this time they are hell-bent to prove to themselves and to the world what they were unable to do against the Nazis, that is, fight back and win. As such, a new Hitler is always around the corner. Now Iran is the new Hitler and the Israeli political establishment will not rest until this new one is destroyed. It won't be WW2 with the Jews losing. It will be WW3 with the Jews winning. However, when WW3 starts with an attack on Iran, all of humanity loses.

Israel is not going to attack Iran without US approval and that approval is extremely unlikely. Just look at the map. Without US approval Israel would have fly through Turkey, Syria or Jordan-Saudi Arabia. Israel may be able to get a few planes over Iranian airspace and drop a few bombs, but not do any real damage. The only result would be to rile the Iranians, certainly not set back their nuclear ambitions by much.

If anyone wants to argue that Israel is going to attack, they should come up with a scenario that such an attack would provoke the US to go to war against Iran. If Bush could avoid this trap, then it seems extremely unlikely that Obama would be sucked in.

MJ - I'm confused. A couple of days ago, you were an America Firster, said so loundly and frequently, and lambasted commenters who you felt put Israel first.

Now you say you're an Israel Firster? If you support Israel, why aren't you more vocal about the many commenters in your various threads who obviously hate Israel with every fiber of their being - I'm referring to the ones who viciously attack Israel at every opportunity but never seem to have anything negative to say about other nations that do the same things or worse? The hate that they are promoting can cause real damage to Israel, and you are letting the ugly attacks go unanswered.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R - GA) has been on the Board of Advisors at the far right-wing ‘Israel Project’ since shortly after first being elected to the Senate (defeating Max Cleland) in 2002. He had a TV ad early in his 2008 campaign that prominently touted his belief in a “benevolent God".