INTERNATIONAL: "Keeping Score on Obama vs. Netanyahu," by Mark Landler and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 21 May 2009.

I honestly think Obama will disappoint Arabs over Palestine. He simply has far bigger fish to fry. And the Palestinians are so gloriously self-destructive anyhow.

But I also think Obama will disappoint Israelis over Iran for similar reasons (bigger fish, and Israel doesn't know when to stop), and because he's more attracted to the possible dynamic plays with a nuclear Iran (he knows he cannot stop the achievement anyway) than sitting with the same ugly status quo that has defined the region for about four decades now.

Of course, this will never be said. Officially, America will be fully engaged in preventing Iranian nukes. But smart money knows that reality is coming, and is interested in seeing what it can provide the region in terms of new strategic plays.

The head-in-the-sand crowd still pins all hopes on the miracle Israeli air strike, which will happen, and will be declared miraculously effective, and yet it will have no appreciable impact on the ultimate outcomes.

But it will set back any hope for a two-state solution through term #1, and Obama, smart enough to know it, won't be wasting much political capital on the subject.

Thus the Obama-versus-Netanyahu vibe so prevalent in the coverage. These guys are not really on the same team right now, as the U.S. will sit on the sidelines (despite showy efforts) and wait for better strategic dynamics. The proximate hope rests on the election in Iran, but even a good outcome there (my pessimism grows) won't give us what we want. Yes, we may get a papering over deal, but Iran wants its nuclear deterrent and Iran will get it.

As I wrote more than four years ago, the question that ensues is, What will we get?

Yes, yes, I know. Iran will get the bomb and then immediately put Hamas in charge of its usage.

If it were only that simple, and if only Iran was that stupid. But no easy buttons on this one.