It's generally accepted as a truism that even the most moderate of Israeli leaders are so ideologically hawkish on national defense and their neighbors that they have to look to the left just to catch a glimpse of George W. Bush. While this makes Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's virtual ultimatum that he will "stop Iran's nuclear program if Obama doesn't" somewhat predictable, it fails to make it any less loathsome.

The ultimatum, reported yesterday in the
Atlantic Monthly online, is of a dual nature, both in terms of logic and in terms of ultimata. First of all, it's a false dichotomy: Netanyahu presents the issue as one of choosing between America's
or Israel's attack on Iran, as if it's a foregone conclusion that attack is the only alternative to everything else.
Second, another ultimatum follows quickly on its heels: "Netanyahu said he would support President Obama’s decision to engage Iran, so long as negotiations brought about a quick end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions." While a non-nuclear and non-violent solution is desired, it ultimately takes a backseat to a timetable that evidently has been established irrespective of the progress of any other action. In short, this is exactly the way to frame the urgency and the parameters of a crisis if you have equal or greater interest in preemptively justifying your
own violent acts as you have in any other form of solution.
There's another, much larger and more critical issue at work here, but it encapsulates the dynamic of this piecemeal, disingenuous thinking better than it explains it. For now, how about some
bold quote + reply to look at the mess that is this rhetoric.