First, there was "a crisis." Then, there was "the worst crisis in US-Israel relations ever." Now, a mere 36 hours later, the "crisis recedes."

An alien with nothing better to do but to scan the Israeli media in the last 10 days would be compelled to report to the Council of Sages of his home planet that it seems that two countries, the United States and Israel are on the brink of "a major crisis." If that alien neglected to do his reading on US-Israel relations in the last 40 years and rely only on his media survey, he should be excused for reporting back that these two countries are in the midst of a full-scale nasty diplomatic conflict over an issue called Iran.

Furthermore, the perplexed alien briefed the Council that he witnessed a strange form of humanoid diplomacy, certainly between two self-proclaimed "unshakeable allies": The entire "crisis" takes place in the media. Do they not converse with each other? He was asked. Not the leaders, from what I gather, he replied.

In fact, he reported, something strange is happening. The president of the United States, a superpower on that particular planet, is providing unprecedented military, technological and diplomatic assistance to the small country, Israel. Yet the leader of Israel persists in treating that American president as hostile, quietly accusing him of not caring and sacrificing Israel's security and almost openly endorsing his rival for the presidency. 

Our alien was reassigned to desk duty. His report just didn't make sense to the Council.

The alliance between the United States and Israel is underlined by a vision, shared values, common interests (even if they require redefinition since the end of the Cold War) and a comparable worldview. Differences in policy emphasis or nuance in the peace process always existed, but the foundations have been further consolidated in the last four decades.

Therefore, before calling something a crisis, it's worth looking at all its attributes and dimensions.

A crisis in relations between two countries as close as the US and Israel usually contains some or all of the following ingredients: A fundamental disagreement over the nature of a problem; a dissimilar threat perception relating to the issue at hand; A different interpretation of cause and effect and the timeline and dynamics of the issue; A divergence over the desired policy or set of policies required to adequately address the issue.

On the issue of curbing or reversing altogether Iran's nuclear program perhaps just one of these ingredients exists: The different interpretation of "Cause and Effect". Specifically this relates not to the substance, but to the timetable delineating the point where you credibly threaten and eventually may carry out a limited - but powerful - military strike.

Israel thinks that it may have to strike alone and if so, it has to be done in the next three-four months otherwise nuclear facilities would become both diffused and impenetrable. The US believes that mid-2013 is just as good. The different perspective relates of course to each country's respective military capabilities. While Israel can delay and inflict limited damage, but must do it soon, the US is equipped to demolish Iran's nuclear facilities at almost any point in time, yet adopts a more multilateral approach.

On every other facet of the Iranian nuclear issue, the US and Israel have almost identical principles and strategic interests, namely that Iran should not possess nuclear capability; A mutual understanding that diplomacy must be exhausted, sanctions allowed time to work, an international coalition and legitimacy need to be assembled.

But in such an alliance there is one other factor: the personal relationship between the leaders. The discreetness and intimacy of their discourse and the respect they have for one another. Political Science academic orthodoxy usually attributes less importance to personal relationships, since nation-states operate primarily on the basis of advancing national interests. In this respect a warm relationship is a bonus, a cool one is but a limited disadvantage.

But in a unique relationship, such as the one that exists between Israel and the US, a cordial, trust-based affinity between the president and the prime minister is a force multiplier. It also projects power and compliments Israel's deterrence.

When relations were based on trust, like the cases of Clinton-Rabin, George W. Bush-Sharon and George W. Bush-Olmert, agendas were advanced and cooperation reigned. When it wasn't, like in George H.W. Bush and Shamir, Clinton and Netanyahu and Obama-Netanyahu, confusion and miscalculation define everything.

So what are we to make of the current disagreement? Is it a crisis as was the 1956 Israeli-Egyptian war? Is it similar to the 1975 Ford administration "Reassessment" of relations, in the context of the post-1973 war Israeli-Egyptian interim agreements? Is it the 1991 George Bush 41/James Baker - Shamir settlements and loan guarantees rift?

Not really. Look at the evidence.

Is there a crisis between Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta? No.

Is there a crisis between Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, the Israeli chief of the General Staff, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs? No.

Is there a crisis between Tamir Pardo, the head of the Mossad, and David Petraeus, the CIA director? No.

Is there a crisis, beyond differences of opinion and style, between Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? No.

Is there a crisis between the President of Israel, Shimon Peres and any of the above protagonists? No.

Is there a crisis between the leaderships of both parties in Congress and chairmen of relevant committees and any of the above? No.

Are there significant gaps in how they all interpret the Iranian threat? No.

So through a simple process of empirically based elimination we can isolate "The Crisis." It goes by the name of Benjamin Netanyahu, aka the prime minister of Israel.

More specifically, his sour, dour, toxic, at times acrimonious and definitely devoid-of-trust relationship with President Barack Obama going back to May 2009 when the two met in Washington and the downhill pattern was regretfully established.

Netanyahu, even when he makes valid and salient points and raises compelling issues suffers from a serious credibility-deficit because he never "played ball" and because he never really bothered to understand and approach Obama. He is then looked at suspiciously when he demands that Obama set red lines on an Iran strike as if A) Obama works for him and B) foreign policy is a commodities futures market in which an American president can declare now his position 18 months down the road.