Inventing crises, part 2012…

We’ve been following the ongoing kerfuffle over how Bibi and Obama aren’t seeing eye to eye over Iran and that Obama refuses to give a clear red line on what he thinks is actionable against Iran in Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

As with much about the Middle East, foreign policy and electioneering, there’s sound and fury, but what is actually significant?

Obama’s stated position on nuclear weapons and proliferation is that he wants to eventually see all nuclear weapons destroyed. He’s got zero-tolerance on the issue, and that’s actually a stronger position than with the Bush Administration. He’s pushed for greater reductions of nuclear weapons in US and Russian inventories, so why would he allow Iran to get nukes? After all, if Iran gets nukes, that would likely spur a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt, among others look to offset the Iranian advantage. That’s an even more dangerous situation. And Obama’s legacy is pinned in part on holding the line on nuclear proliferation.

So, it’s not about red lines. It’s more about style. Bibi wants (needs for domestic consumption) to look like he’s doing something about Iran - which is at or beyond the limits of Israeli military capabilities, and needs/wants the US to make definitive statements when the US doesn’t want to be constrained in such a fashion.

The Atlantic’s Jeff Goldberg had a similar take on this.