"Obama will come bearing the message that if diplomatic efforts and sanctions don’t bear fruit, Israel should 'sit tight' and let Washington take the stage, even if that means remaining on the sidelines during a US military operation...Netanyahu will be asked to refrain from any military action and keep a low profile, avoiding even the mention of a strike." The report cited unnamed officials.
Well, in the context of the above discussion, I felt it responsible to report this, while indicating that I find it very hard to believe. Especially is this so with Hagel now to be secretary of defense.
What is most credible about this is the fact that Obama indicates he would not want Israel involved, clearly so that it would not appear to the Arab world that the US was allied with Israel or acting on Israel's behalf. President Bush senior pulled something similar when he went after Saddam Hussein.
Plus, there is the remote possibility that the exposure of Iran's plan B, which is now starting to be operational, might be stiffening Obama's back and forcing him to face realities.
But, as I've discussed before, it's a tough sell, getting Israel to sit back and trust Obama on this. Nor is it prudent Israeli policy to put Israel's security in the hands of another nation.
I ponder what is expected to happen in June that would allegedly open the "window of opportunity" that is referred to. And whether this would bring us past our own "window of opportunity" for striking. That is, if we waited, and the US failed to strike, if we would find we no longer could because we lack the equipment to hit those reinforced bunkers.