“He is looking for some mistake by his partner that he can use to torpedo the relationship. He needs a blow-up so he can walk away yet put the blame for the break-up on Israel!”
Of course, the good news is that this may signal the U.S. has gotten intelligence (or even been officially advised behind closed doors) of Israel’s intent to attack Iran. Dissing Israel now is simply paving the way for Obama to say to I’mANutJob “Don’t blame ME!” so that he will retaliate exclusively against Israel rather than against Israel, Iraq and/or gulf shipping.
A more benign interpretation is that Israel plans to attack and U.S. plans to assist (or at least look the other way as Israel overflies Iraq to reach its targets). Treating Israel badly is thus a feint designed to lead I’mANutJob that no attack is forthcoming (since he presumably calculates an attack without U.S. cooperation would be too risky for Israel) and/or give the U.S. “plausible deniability” about its own involvement.
Given Obama’s history and worldview, the first explanation seems much more plausible than the second. But in that case, the administration’s behavior also may have nothing to do with an Israeli attack.
One thing that worries me about this matter is that it sends a signal to enemies of Israel that they might attack Israel with little or no response from the U.S. (particularly given Obama's sissified approach to international affairs in general).
Of course, only those with very bad memories actually believe they can win against Israel. But then Israel's enemies aren't known for their good judgment.