The now-open conflict between the Obama administration and Bibi Netanyahu has little to do with Obama’s hurt feelings or a breach of protocol, though it is portrayed that way by the White House, many Democrats, and increasingly, weak-kneed supporters of Israel who worry that getting Barack Obama angry would be the worst thing of all.

Think about that — major pro-Israel advocates are scared to death of Barack Obama’s temper and feelings, rather than terms of what is emerging as a disastrous deal that puts Israel in mortal danger and elevates the Mullah-regime to near-superpower status.

When even the Washington Post Editorial Board comes out against the emerging deal and the way in which Obama plans to implement it, one has to wonder why we are so scared of Obama’s personal pique.

In particular, Democrats have a choice, but it’s not Bibi versus Barack:

Some Democrats, like John Lewis, are boycotting a Netanyahu appearance because they perceive an insult to Obama.

Seriously, Iran is about to go nuke, as it develops nuclear capable missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are worried about Obama’s alleged hurt feelings and pride?

Democrats have a choice, but it’s not Bibi versus Barack. It’s Barack versus the best interests of the American people

Obama’s goal of normalizing the Mullah-regime was obvious back in the summer of 2009, when he stayed silent as Iranians rose up in the streets demanding freedom and true democracy. When Obama finally did speak up, it was tepid.

For whatever his reason, Obama has a soft spot for the Mullah-regime, as detailed in an exhaustive analysis at Mosaic Magazine, Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy:

How eager is the president to see Iran break through its isolation and become a very successful regional power? Very eager. A year ago, Benjamin Rhodes, deputy national-security adviser for strategic communication and a key member of the president’s inner circle, shared some good news with a friendly group of Democratic-party activists. The November 2013 nuclear agreement between Tehran and the “P5+1”—the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany—represented, he said, not only “the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian [nuclear] issue,” but “probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy.” For the administration, Rhodes emphasized, “this is healthcare . . . , just to put it in context.” Unaware that he was being recorded, he then confided to his guests that Obama was planning to keep Congress in the dark and out of the picture: “We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away.”

The Mosaic article is a must read for anyone who thinks the strengthening of Iran’s position in the world and the recognition of its “right” to enrich uranium and otherwise build a nuclear infrastructure is just happening by coincidence, rather than a matter of U.S. policy.

Professor Jeffrey Herf has a good summary of the larger point made by the Mosaic article,
Wishful thinking and the path to trash talk:

Last week, I examined the profane language used by a member of President Obama’s foreign policy team to describe the Prime Minister of Israel.

As the official who went on the public record the statement was not publicly and personally rebuked by the President, and the official was neither publicly named, shamed or fired, it is logical to conclude that it reflected sentiments the President holds but would not publicly express himself. In other words, the President was using his unnamed aide as a mouthpiece. The White House press corps was satisfied with some disavowals from the Secretary of State and a White House staffer. I argued that the deeper cause of the anger at Netanyahu was his challenge to Obama’s political judgment concerning the Iranian nuclear issue….

So rather than acknowledge that the President’s policy towards Iran rests on a set of illusions and that Iran is not reciprocating his good will and concessions, the Obama White House has taken the low road, first with the disgusting gutter-language interview in November and now with indignation about a speech by Netanyahu to Congress. Accusations that those who disagree with Obama are destroying the hopes for peace and that the “Israel lobby” in the United States is — once again? — pushing the United States into war may once again find their way into public discussion in the coming weeks and months.

Netanyahu promises to do everything the bad emerging deal:

I don’t underestimate the damage Obama can do to Israel — starting with the U.N., where there already have been anonymous leaked threats to allow a Palestinian Security Council proposal forcing Israel back to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.

But everything is relative. There is no greater danger to Israel than the Iranian nuclear program. The rest can be muddled through, even though two years is a long time.