Obama says "all the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted in terms of what might happen" in Hawai'i.  "What might happen" is an incoming missile strike from North Korea on July 4.  Happy independence day!

No one's really scared about the missile strike.  We can intercept it easily.  The larger question is how to deal with North Korea's perpetual need to agitate the international community with its refusal to stop slowly testing its nuclear capabilities or launching creepy satellites into space.

There are two general directions of engagement with so-called rogue states-- ratcheting it up or toning it down.  Like most things, striking the right balance is key.  With North Korea, the Obama administration has continually said they will enforce U.N. sanctions against the impoverished nation, as well as acknowledging that they're tailing a ship that might be headed for Myanmar, loaded with hordes of evil weapons for the evil junta to be evil with.  For Myanmar, and North Korea-- and, to be fair, for Russia, China, and Iran, and all the other nations with companies and industries that profit from all this shadowy trafficking and the production and development of weapons-- the orchestrated drama isn't so much a means to a grander, more nefarious end.  It's more of the simple 9 to 5 of running a country that places itself in opposition to the West.

So with the administration's attitude towards North Korea, we see hints of Obama's understanding that while more nuclear weapons is never a good thing, North Korea's actions seem more designed to agitate for the sake of agitating than to create a new world order.

Iran offers a different lesson in nuclear containment.

Obama has focused on mitigating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a key to alleviating broader tensions within the Middle East, striking a much harsher tone than previous administrations with respect to Israel's Palestine policy.  Hillary Clinton came out forcefully against the nation who Obama once called "our strongest ally" on the campaign trail, telling Israel to immedaitely halt the expansion of settlements in the West Bank.  In a commentary in the New York Post yesterday, James Kirchick lamented the perceived decline of support for Israel within the White House, noting that the American public's declared support has diminished in tandem since Obama took office.

The downward trend in American support for Israel raises interesting questions about the media's effects on public thinking and of the American people's seemingly unwavering trust in their new president.  But it also highlights the fact that a copule years' worth of bad publicity can easily wipe away sympathies for the Jewish state that's been threatened with obliteration by Iran's (now illegitimate) president.  The 2007 incursion into Lebanon, and especially the more recent campaign in Gaza, were enormous PR disasters for Israel.  The Israelis came off as brutal aggressors, elevating the threats they faced from pesky homemade rockets to a near-existential menace.

Iran may just be that existential menace to Israel.

It is generally understood that they have been developing nuclear technologies at Natanz since the late 90's, and they may be a few years away from creating an actual bomb.  Meanwhile, Obama's tone with Iran has been to encourage dialogue with its leaders, as he has also with a less receptive North Korea.  Even while Iranians are dying in the streets, Obama has maintained his distance, refusing to condemn the deaths of civilians there or support the notion that their election was rigged.  On those nukes, he doesn't speak in the same severe, defensive platitudes as Israeli leaders, who say Iran must be stopped at all costs.

So what to do?  Stay softer on Iran, which may have more firepower than North Korea, while we observantly let North Korea traffic weapons to Burma and possibly fire useless missiles at Hawai'i?  Yes.

Why? Because as much as conservatives may opine that Israel's security is more threatened by Iran than by the Palestinians, or Hezbollah, placating the Palestinians, who live in an occupied state, is about more than just appeasement.  Obama is pursuing a policy of non-agitation.

Sure, Iran getting nuclear weapons could be set off a chain reaction that spurs an arms race in the region, even if nobody ends up using them.  But it's the tone that needs to change.  Iran's internal debate is transforming vociferously without any nudging from the United States (although to be fair, the social networking sites given so much credit for aiding in the protests there are all American creations).  The hope is that this nation, along with the other Middle Eastern states will gradually open themselves up, embracing Western values and ideas so that they may more closely adopt a democratic, capitalist system.

So while Israel may be hated across the region, they will become the role model-- the paragon of tolerance and high living standards and diversity-- rather than the enemy.

The challenge is to make our beliefs clear without agitating.

But just to be safe, making sure to dot the I's and cross the T's keeps us from having to worry about pissing anybody off too much with our moral superiority.