For Obama, keeping nuclear weapons out of the mullahs' hands, preventing the global economy from imploding, and keeping Israel on side may be a little too much in an election year. These things don't go together particularly well. Some say he may be forced to choose. In Newsweek magazine:
The key question now is how much time is left to achieve a negotiated solution. Israeli officials say that the United States thinks it can afford to wait until Iran is on the very verge of weaponizing, because U.S. forces have the capacity to carry out multiple bombing sorties and cripple the Iranian program at that point. Israel, however, would not be able to carry out such a sustained attack and would need to hit much sooner to be effective—before Iran could shelter much of its program deep underground. One former Israeli official tells Newsweek he heard this explanation directly from Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “If Israel will miss its last opportunity [to attack], then we will have to lean only on the United States, and if the United States decides not to attack, then we will face an Iran with a bomb,” says the former Israeli official. This source says that Israel has asked Obama for assurances that if sanctions fail, he will use force against Iran. Obama’s refusal to provide that assurance has helped shape Israel’s posture: a refusal to promise restraint, or even to give the United States advance notice.(Video: "Jonathan Tepperman interviews author Vali Nasr about developments in Iran, its relationship with the diplomatic community, and what the United States should do to finally get Iran to the negotiation table. Current sanctions are designed to be more effective than in the past, but will instead be counterproductive, pushing Iran to be more aggressive in return. Dr. Nasr--professor of international politics at Tufts University and former senior advisor to the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan--argues that active diplomacy and policy adjustments are crucial for avoiding military conflict.")