The debate over Iran's nuclear program has been at the forefront of official US-Israel deliberations. The recent meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama at the White House was overshadowed by Iran's nuclear program and whether an attack should be used to derail it. The debate is not over whether or not to attack, but rather when.

Obama, like most US presidents, is hoping for a second presidential term and therefore warned Netanyahu against any unilateral attacks before the US presidential elections in November 2012. Obama is afraid that an attack on Iran will deepen the American economic crisis and thus sabotage his efforts for a second term.

A military strike against Iran would probably provoke it to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which 25 percent of the world's oil is exported. Also, any attack against Iran will probably lead to Iranian retaliation against oil fields in the Arab Gulf countries as well as attacks on US military bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Finally, Israel might not be able to absorb an Iranian retaliation that uses ballistic missiles. Obama does not want any last-minute surprises before the US elections.

But Netanyahu has his own political calculations. He is well aware that after three years in office, eventually he will have to face Israeli voters. A successful military attack against Iranian nuclear facilities would guarantee him another election victory, just like Menachem Begin after he attacked the Iraqi nuclear program before Israeli parliamentary elections in the summer of 1981. Netanyahu is surrounded by hawkish Israeli party leaders and military generals who favor an attack against Iran.

In contrast, most Israeli public opinion polls have indicated recently that the majority of Israelis do not support a unilateral Israeli military attack against Iran. They favor US participation--or at least US approval. In spite of assurances by Israeli military commanders that Israel would be able to carry out the attack alone and defend itself against any Iranian retaliation, the Israeli public is obsessed with its partnership and strategic alliance with the United States, which could prevent Iran from launching massive retaliation.

American and western security agencies do not feel the rush to attack Iran. They are confident that it will take Iran a long time to develop nuclear weapons, and they believe that economic and financial sanctions against Iran will derail its program and bring Tehran back to the negotiating table. Europe is in a very delicate situation. If it warns Israel against attacking Iran, it is accused of betraying Israel (Europeans do not want to revive memories of the Nazi Holocaust). But Europe also knows that any attack against Iran will have heavy economic, financial, and military ramifications.

Netanyahu will probably not attack Iran without American approval and support. But Netanyahu is trying to extort Obama in an election year to give more concessions on other regional issues. First, Israel is probably against any NATO intervention in Syria that could lead to the collapse of the Syrian regime and the eruption of a civil war there that could have negative implications for the long-quiet Israel-Syria border.

Netanyahu is also trying to keep the Palestinian issue on the sideline. He is not ready for any serious negotiations with Palestinians before the final political map of the Middle East is clear. Thus, Netanyahu is trying to postpone resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict until after the US elections, seeking guarantees from Obama of a policy of "no pressure".

The irony of the Middle East is that Palestinians seem to pay the price of any regional conflict. The Gulf War in 1991 resulted in the convening of the Madrid peace conference, but with no political results for Palestinians. The Gulf War in 2003 paved the way for the launching of the Quartet roadmap, but no Palestinian state was established as the roadmap's second phase envisioned.

The Palestinians will have to wait another year before any progress in the peace process with Israel. The Americans, Europeans and the Arabs are all busy with their internal political, economic, and financial problems. No new initiatives are expected before the US elections and a determination on the fate of the Iranian nuclear program. Still, Palestinians can make use of this time by reorganizing internally and preparing for the uncertain political future.