The opposing views of Obama and Netanyahu on Iran's nuclear

Apart from the long applause bestowed by members Republicans, and even some Democratic US Congress, Netanyahu's speech did not bring anything new, nor any form of alternative strategy to the usual threats from Iran, which, with the atomic bomb , would be a danger to regional stability and the security of Israel. On the one hand you can understand the fears and analysis of the Israeli Prime Minister: in fact a possible new nuclear power in the Middle East, it becomes an element of alteration of the balance somewhat precarious; even more if this nation is ruled by a theocratic power, that, despite improvements over the previous executive, does not ensure application of civil and political rights, and is the protagonist of will ambitious geopolitical context. International Relations The basic problem is that none of the two states want to recognize the other and which keep part of their long-distance relationship, heavy elements away, which could only be eliminated with a shared political program. The starting point, as well identified by Obama, should be the creation of two states, with Palestine at last sovereign, which would represent an achievement for Iran, capable of interrupting its strategic influence on the Lebanese Hezbollah, which, that point, at least as regards Israel, cease their purpose. The creation of the two states should stop, or at least mitigate, the reasons for enmity between Tehran and Tel Aviv, which could come to a mutual recognition internationally, in a climate not of friendship, but of respect. This reasoning was behind the target set by Obama for Kerry, but was hampered in every way by Netanyahu, for reasons that were perceived mostly of internal order: the development of settlements in defiance of international treaties. The executive of Tel Aviv has not understood that realizing the project of the two states, could solve international issues far more important than those of internal order, questions, which, above all, interested in a particular way to its most important ally, the United States. In a picture, however, at present very hypothetical peace with Palestine, reaching an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue, it would be much easier and would allow Washington to close a matter considered very important for the international scene . The United States, however, after Netanyahu's speech, must pursue their goal, despite Israel's position; not that this was a given unexpected, but from now on Obama will proceed at a forced leave Tel Aviv in a state of isolation towards the issue. On the other hand, the strategy of the American President appears at best: if you want to control the development of Iranian nuclear technology is much safer to do it through diplomatic agreements, which address the issue frontally, even by military means, as would make the Israeli leader. This is the strategy as economical as possible in all areas, and that also allows you to reopen diplomatic channels with a country, whose isolation, did not help anyone, both politically and economically. However, Netanyahu's position is shared by the American right, which sees with suspicion even unofficial collaboration between Iran and the US, which is developing against the Islamic state. Israel fears these developments and the leaders of Tel Aviv told Congress that the enemy of your enemy is not your friend, referring precisely to the question of understanding the military against the caliphate and earning several applause. Netanyahu to Obama still recognized his friendship to the Israeli people, manifested in acts known and also with other not known, implicitly admitting that the collaboration between the two states, despite the various differences of opinion still continues. On the other hand the American attitude with Iran is far from being under the thumb: sanctions that Tehran has been subjected are the proof, that the US has exerted considerable pressure on the country of Iran, hitting an economy put in big trouble by measures designed to Washington. The feeling is that the tone of Netanyahu, although placed in the line of conduct hitherto maintained, have been exacerbated by electoral reasons, it would include as well as the tone toward Obama were deliberately less tense than usual.