>>I think it is more to the point that whoever is elected may find that they are handed a fait accompli by Israel.
>
>There can be no incompatibility - all the final candidates were vetted by AIPAC, after pledging (hazing, if any, wasn't televised, I assume).
>
>>You'll notice he also says that if McCain were elected the Israeli's would still feel constrained as the new admin gets up and running therefore would probably go before January if they felt that a window were closing.
>>
>>That may be just hardcore analysis. As to why he would say it publicly ... may be more due to personality than politics <s>
>
>Which is why I actually like the author of the article. Knowing that the editor will slap an imprecise qualification in the subcaption ("John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations" - which is not exactly true), he strategically inserted a preemptive correction somewhere deep inside the text: "Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN".

However much Bolton's credentials offend your politics, his analysis is pretty good. (of course this is because it pretty much matches what I've been saying here for 2 years or more <g>)

Israel is very sensitive about people with nuclear ambitions talking about wiping them of the face of the earth. Even if the big talkers are bombastic Persian or Arab blowhards with delusions of empires past, they would do very well to put themselves through a reality check.

There are some hard men in Tel Aviv. Sometimes American politicians whose idea of a "tough fight" is a nasty floor vote forget that "national security" isn't just a campaign issue to the Israelis. They had their 911 a long time ago.