Our ally, Israel, is surrounded on all sides by her enemies and all eyes are turning toward Washington, D.C.

The Jerusalem Post has the story:

Former Military Intelligence head Amos Yadlin on Saturday urged President Barack Obama to visit Israel to allay fears that the US is not fully committed to stopping the Iranian nuclear program.

“The US president should visit Israel and tell its leadership – and, more important, its people – that preventing a nuclear Iran is a US interest, and if we have to resort to military action, we will,” Yadlin said in an opinion piece published in The Washington Post.

Yadlin also asked the US to provide Israel with advanced military technology and intelligence, contingent on Israeli pledges to delay a strike.

Yadlin presented a five-point plan to the Obama administration designed to convince “allies and adversaries alike that military action is real, imminent and doable.”

He called on Obama to notify Congress in writing that he reserves the right to use military force on Iran. He added that the US should increase its military presence in the Persian Gulf, and should also publicly commit to the security of its allies in the region.

Yadlin, who left his IDF post in 2010 and is currently the head of the Institute for National Security Studies, has been a vocal supporter of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who have both hinted that Israel would not leave the fate of Israel in the hands of the US.

“Israel cannot afford to outsource its security to another country,” Yadlin wrote in the Washington Post. “But if the United States wants Israel to give sanctions and diplomacy more time, Israelis must know that they will not be left high and dry if these options fail.”

Yadlin, one of the pilots who took part in the 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, hinted that Israel was capable of hitting the heart of the Iranian nuclear program, but said Israel would need US support “both the day after and the decade after a strike.”

President Ronald Wilson Reagan said the following in a speech he made in 1982:

America has long been committed to bringing peace to this troubled region. For more than a generation, successive United States administrations have endeavored to develop a fair and workable process that could lead to a true and lasting Arab-Israeli peace.

Our involvement in the search for Mideast peace is not a matter of preference; it’s a moral imperative. The strategic importance of the region to the United States is well known, but our policy is motivated by more than strategic interests. We also have an irreversible commitment to the survival and territorial integrity of friendly states. Nor can we ignore the fact that the well-being of much of the world’s economy is tied to stability in the strife-torn Middle East. Finally, our traditional humanitarian concerns dictated a continuing effort to peacefully resolve conflicts.

When our administration assumed office in January of 1981, I decided that the general framework for our Middle East policy should follow the broad guidelines laid down by my predecessors. There were two basic issues we had to address. First, there was the strategic threat to the region posed by the Soviet Union and its surrogates, best demonstrated by the brutal war in Afghanistan, and, second, the peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

With regard to the Soviet threat, we have strengthened our efforts to develop with our friends and allies a joint policy to deter the Soviets and their surrogates from further expansion in the region and, if necessary, to defend against it.

With respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we’ve embraced the Camp David framework as the only way to proceed. We have also recognized, however, solving the Arab-Israeli conflict in and of itself cannot assure peace throughout a region as vast and troubled as the Middle East.

…Tragic turmoil in the Middle East runs back to the dawn of history. In our modern day, conflict after conflict has taken its brutal toll there. In an age of nuclear challenge and economic interdependence, such conflicts are a threat to all the people of the world, not just the Middle East itself. It’s time for us all — in the Middle East and around the world — to call a halt to conflict, hatred, and prejudice. It’s time for us all to launch a common effort for reconstruction, peace, and progress.

It has often been said — and, regrettably, too often been true — that the story of the search for peace and justice in the Middle East is a tragedy of opportunities missed. In the aftermath of the settlement in Lebanon, we now face an opportuntiy for a broader peace. This time we must not let it slip from our grasp. We must look beyond the difficulties and obstacles of the present and move with a fairness and resolve toward a brighter future. We owe it to ourselves — and to posterity — to do no less. For if we miss this chance to make a fresh start, we may look back on this moment from some later vantage point and realize how much that failure cost us all.

Back in March of 2011, the Palestinians wanted Israel to return to the little narrow strip of a country that it was before the 1967 war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat across from President Barack Hussein Obama and told him:

What we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluation of any prospective deal.

The ball is firmly in Obama’s court. Let’s see if he sinks a game-winner or throws up an air ball.

I’m not holding my breath.

Genesis 12: 1 – 3: 

1 Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”