The New York Times on Sunday featured a fascinating interview with President Obama conducted by columnist Tom Friedman. In the U.S., most analysts focused on the President's salesmanship of the just-concluded Iran nuclear deal and the "Obama Doctrine" behind it. But in Israel, left and right alike zeroed on President Obama's pledge that "if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there." Zeroed in, that is, with good reason. After all, despite their close ties, the United States has never offered Israel a formal security guarantee. And as it turns out, many conservatives against the Iran deal in both countries nevertheless probably wouldn't support a mutual defense pact.
In the Friedman interview, the President went well beyond his usual "we've got your back." Instead, his language suggested an American commitment on a par with that given to NATO allies or Japan. Acknowledging that Iran poses a qualitatively different threat to Israel than the United States, Obama declared:

Obviously, Israel is in a different situation, he added. "Now, what you might hear from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, which I respect, is the notion, 'Look, Israel is more vulnerable. We don't have the luxury of testing these propositions the way you do,' and I completely understand that. And further, I completely understand Israel's belief that given the tragic history of the Jewish people, they can't be dependent solely on us for their own security. But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I'm willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them. And that, I think, should be ... sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table." [Emphasis mine.]

If this is more than just rhetoric, Obama's promise is, as Vice President Joe Biden might say, a "big f**king deal."
To put it in some historical context, recall President Kennedy's response to the October 1962 revelations of Soviet missiles in Cuba. As he explained to the nation:

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."

Is President Obama in effect saying, "It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any attack launched by Iran or any other nation against Israel as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran or any other aggressor?" (Even with his understandable-and entirely appropriate--omission of Israel's non-state enemies like Hamas and Hezbollah, Obama would be giving Bibi Netanyahu a very sweet deal.) If so, that is a much more expansive guarantee than Senator Hilary Clinton articulated in 2008:

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

Despite the close national security ties between the countries, Obama's apparent willingness to offer Israel formal American protection as an insurance policy to accompany an Iranian nuclear deal would represent a dramatic break with past U.S. policy. After all, while a massive influx of American weapons and putting U.S. forces worldwide on high alert helped save Israel during the October War of 1973, direct American intervention against Egypt and Syria was not in the cards. And as the Congressional Research Service recently explained, despite its commitments to maintaining Israel's "qualitative military edge" (QME) and various Congressional resolutions of support, the U.S. has never cemented a security guarantee for the Jewish State. CRS cited a 2006 article about the Iranian nuclear threat penned by a former Israeli national security adviser in which he discussed potential benefits and drawbacks for Israel of more formal U.S. security guarantees for Israel, including a possible "nuclear umbrella":

Such an arrangement would seem to be a "no-brainer" for Israel. Yet Jerusalem might in fact be quite reluctant to conclude one. This, for three primary reasons, each deeply entrenched in Israel's national security thinking. First, it would fear a loss of freedom of action, due to the contractual requirement to consult on the means of addressing the threat. Second, it would be concerned lest the US demand that Israel divulge and even forego its independent capabilities. And third, it might worry that the US would not live up to its nuclear commitments, much as NATO allies feared during the Cold War.

But for many hardline supporters in Israel and the United States, even that "no brainer" still might not be enough. While early versions of the Kirk-Menendez "Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act" promised U.S. diplomatic, economic and military support for Israel if it chose to launch unilateral strikes against Iran, some conservatives are advocating that now is the time for Washington to end its $3 billion military subsidy. Not so much because Israel is a wealthy country that does not need America to fund 20 percent of its defense budget. No, the likes Noah Pollak and Elliot Abrams argue, the problem is the money gives the United States too much sway over Israeli policymakers. As Pollak of the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) put it:

"The experience of the Obama years has sharpened the perception among pro-Israel Americans that aid can cut against Israel by giving presidents with bad ideas more leverage than they would otherwise have."

Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren disagreed. As Eli Lake reported:

For Oren, the most important element of the U.S. aid is not the dollar figure but what it represents politically. "The aid has a meaning that exceeds its dollar amount," he said. "Because Israel does not have a defense treaty with the United States, the aid is a message to the region about the nature of the U.S.-Israel alliance. I see the message as more important than the aid."

On Sunday, President Obama sent very clear message that Israel need not fear a nuclear agreement with Iran that could be finalized by June 30. If Obama is serious about what would be a one-way security guarantee for Israel, the question becomes this: can Israel take "yes" for an answer?