Something is wrong with the U.S.-Israel relationship, and it is not helping Israel either in the short or long term. The politics and the behind-the-scenes maneuvering with respect to Israel's recent foray into northwest Syria underscore the fact that Israel is far too beholden to the United States. The United States may be trying to move rapidly on a number of fronts in the Middle East, but U.S. policy directions and goals do not appear to be consistently in Israel's interests.

The United States has three major regional concerns at the moment: Iraq, Iran, and the November Middle East summit. None of these issues, however, is likely to move very far along — at least in a positive, constructive manner — before the Bush administration leaves town. In fact, they all have the potential to cause even more damage to President Bush's bleak record and abysmal opinion poll ratings.

Israeli intelligence had made a clear determination that Syria was in the process of acquiring nuclear capabilities and/or building a nuclear or other installation of weapons of mass destruction. However, in order to placate the State Department, Israel had to withhold attacking Syria until the United States gave the green light. It had to wait for U.S. intelligence, which reportedly was embarrassed by its continued "misses," to corroborate Israel's information, and for the Pentagon to give the Israel Air Force proper aerial codes so that Israel's airplanes would not be intercepted by "friendly" U.S. fire. The fact that Washington did not find nuclear weapons in Iraq and thus looked foolish promulgating a war for this purpose is an unacceptable reason for Israel to cool its heels for almost two months before attacking Syria's developing nuclear facility.

All of this was occurring as the United States and the other members of the six-power talks with North Korea appeared to be moving toward a constructive removal of North Korea's nuclear capabilities. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill invested enormous energy in trying to bring about a shift in North Korea's attitude on nuclear weapons. It was thus another embarrassment to the State Department when the Israelis determined it was probably North Korean materiel being delivered to Syria, and that North Korean, Iranian, or Russian personnel facilitated the development of the Syrian site. Israel, however, is not as concerned about the disingenuousness of the North Koreans as it is about the potentially destabilizing threat that the presence of such weapons might cause in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, as the United States publicly pursues diplomatic initiatives to contain the Iranian threat, the administration is developing a military strategy to attack the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than the Iranian nuclear facilities, according to Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker. The success of such a policy would enable Bush to claim a victory in the war on terrorism, and on the Iranian-backed infiltrators behind anti-West efforts in Baghdad.

Washington knows that casualties incurred in attacks against possible Iranian nuclear sites would be intolerable for the American people. A battle against Iranian forces who were abetting terrorists in Iraq attacking American soldiers might be acceptable.

Israel views a nuclear Iran as an existential threat. It is alarming to consider how the Bush administration might respond if Israel produces unimpeachable human intelligence to go with the aerial reconnaissance concerning Iran's WMD program.

With respect to the Middle East summit next month, Israel is being placed in an exceedingly compromised position. The president is desperately seeking to demonstrate effective statesmanship and to add some positive achievements to his tenure. He is facing an array of conditions set by the Palestinians (read Fatah) and the Saudis. If such a meeting even occurs, it will be the first time a conference takes place at which the participants who attend have no intention of negotiating. All of this may leave Israel in the position of capitulating or walking.

Tactically as well as politically, Israel also faces a number of other problems that impact on the U.S.-Israel relationship. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government is somewhat stronger than it was after last year's Lebanon War, but Olmert has appeared weak by refusing to stand up to Washington. His blanket support of the administration's conduct of the Iraq War has only weakened Israel's independence.

Israel's continuing reliance on American military assistance remains a huge albatross hanging around Israel's neck. It is in Israel's interests, nevertheless, now to demand that the relationship with Washington be upgraded. Israel needs to be willing to act more independently. It should "consult" with its ally, but in deed as well as word Israel must be more willing to act without being beholden to the United States. President Bush may be a good friend of Israel, but he ought in no way, because of his own political weakness, to be able to control or undermine strategies or directions that are in Israel's best interest.