The U.S. and Israel have a long history of working as allies in Middle East issues. But this week the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that the two countries’ perspectives differ on what to do about Iran’s nuclear program- and in fact the two countries may need to part ways over how to take action. Yikes.

What does this mean? Is it a change to the influence that Washington has long enjoyed in Israel? Is it a signal that Israel has a little too much Middle Eastern hubris? Does it mean that the U.S.’s influence over global politics is taking more of a hit than we have been led to believe?

Essentially, Israel is threatening (however subtle) to attack Iran if the international diplomatic efforts don’t work. Well, they’re not working and Iran is provoking a fight- and Israel is biting.

This is not good.

Will Washington support Israel, whether with troops, military supplies or tactical advice and support if that happens? That’s a big, big deal. Was this intended all along as some kind of bait and switch move so that the U.S. could invade another country in the Middle East, and one on the “Axis of Evil?”  

You can imagine that things are tense.

The U.S. said this week that we don’t want to hurt the Iranian people with "crippling" sanctions against Iran's energy sector. Israel is not so concened and Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks it is the only viable option.

"There is of course a certain difference in perspective and a difference in judgment and a difference in the internal clock, a difference in capabilities. I don't think that there is a need to coordinate in this regard. There should be understanding on the exchange of views, but we do not need to coordinate everything," said Barak, who was in Washington for strategic talks.

It’s understandable why Israel feels this way. It’s similar to the Cuban missile crisis-type of situation. Iran is practically next door, and you don’t want your next door neighbors who hate you to have nuclear weapons.

"Probably from this corner of the world it (Iran's nuclear program) doesn't change the script dramatically. From a closer distance, in Israel, it looks like a tipping point for the whole regional order, with quite assured consequences for the wider world."

Israel attacked Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007) around atomic issues. Is this all political theater to lead up to an invasion?

Barak said: "We felt very proud that we never asked the Americans to come and fight for us. We basically ... to paraphrase Churchill, we said, 'Give us the tools and we will do the job.'"

They are fighting for their safety and regional security- and they don’t have a whole lot of friends in the area. Will that mean the U.S. would be forced to help them in any kind of offensive strike? Would it mean a redefinition of all of the political inroads Secretary of State Clinton has made?

It would certainly mean a new world order- both if Iran has atomic weapons or if Israel provokes a war by invading.

Photo Credit: cosmovideo (via Flickr under CCL)