Tom Friedman's column in the November 13 NYT made many of the points that I worry about. I worry that the US is inclined to worry more about Israel's security than America's security. It's interesting that these points are made by someone who is Jewish -- certainly ethnically, maybe religiously, I don't know. He says we (the United States) are not just lawyers hired to negotiate with Iran on behalf of Israel and the Sunni Arab states. We have our own interests to protect. It's ironic that he makes this point while many conservative, Republican politicians seem much more concerned about Israel than they do their own country. And these conservatives ignore the fact that the positions they represent are those of Arab countries that have been generous (unofficially) to terrorists and who are sponsoring some of the most objectionable factions in the Syria fighting. It reminds me of the "Charlie Wilson's War" movie in which he says that he is kept in office in his quiet Texas Congressional district by Jewish money from New York. All he has to do is support Israel and protect his constituents right to bear arms. Otherwise, nobody cares how he votes.
I don't understand why many conservatives support Israeli interests over American interests. It's like that book, What's the Matter with Kansas, looking at why Kansans typically vote against their own personal interests in favor to some political theory that generally works against them. I am glad Friedman calls for Americans to look out for their own interests, but I'm not sure whether we will or not.
Meanwhile, Roger Cohen defends the French position at the Iran talks, in which they blocked an agreement to the delight of the Israelis and the Sunnis. He argues that the French are pursuing a hard-line, aggressive foreign policy across the board, while the US in wimping out. There may be some truth in this, but I am not convinced. I still think that France was influenced by Jewish/Israeli pressure to block the agreement, like conservative, Republican, American legislators.