Tom McCarthy in New York here. Good morning and welcome to our live blog coverage of today's delicate diplomatic two-step between Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama. The two leaders are scheduled to meet at the White House in about a half hour. Then Netanyahu is scheduled to address the Aipac conference at 9pm ET tonight. We'll be live blogging the developments throughout the day and then bringing you Aipac coverage including the prime minister's speech. Here's a quick summary of where things stand:

• This morning's Obama-Netanyahu meeting will be closely assessed – in retrospect; the meeting itself is behind closed doors – for any signs of new tension between the leaders. In his speech to Aipac yesterday President Obama criticized "loose talk of war" on Iran as actually helping the Islamic Republic by driving up oil prices. That could be taken as a direct criticism of Netanyahu, who has led the rhetorical charge on Iran.

• About that speech. Netanyahu came to Washington this week looking for new, stronger rhetoric from the president about the US willingness to participate in a military strike on Iran's nuclear program. Such rhetoric was notably absent from Obama's Aipac speech, although he did reassert the American commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Will Netanyahu leave Washington empty-handed?

• In the not-too-distant background is the presidential race and how an Israeli strike on Iran could change everything. If Netanyahu decides he doesn't need Obama to hit Iran – or that the threat to Israel is too great to wait – then all bets suddenly are off. What if instead of Mitt Romney the president suddenly faces a reelection fight involving a new war in the Middle East, expensive gas, US casualties and a new economic dive – plus Mitt Romney (or Rick Santorum)? Netanyahu knows that Obama knows that Netanyahu knows this.

As we wait for the outcome of the White House meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, here's my colleague Chris McGreal from the floor of the Aipac conference, with a roundup of the action there this morning.

It's been a busy morning of rhetoric at Aipac with Iran inevitably the focus of much of it. The pro-Israel activists have been treated to war talk from the veteran but soon to be ex-senator, Joe Lieberman – whose waning credibility as a liberal was finally sunk by his support of John McCain over Barack Obama for president – and from the former model and enthusiastic Christian evangelist, Kathy Ireland. Obama's call yesterday to stop the war talk did not deter Lieberman from issuing repeated threats to attack Iran. 'It is definitely within our power to stop Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. The question is not whether we can stop them but whether we will choose to stop them. That is why with my colleagues [in the Senate] I've introduced a non-partisan resolution that says when it comes to a nuclear Iran all options must be on the table except one option and that is containment. It won't work,' he said.



Lieberman said that the choice as to whether military action is used is Iran's. 'So far, though economic sanctions applied have clearly affected the Iranian economy, the fact is they haven't led the fanatics who today run that country to slow up their nuclear weapons programme one iota,' he said. 'The Iranian regime must hear a message from us and we must state it loud and clear: either you peacefully negotiate an end to your illicit nuclear activities or they will be ended for you by military attack.' The audience liked what it heard but it liked Ireland – the former model turned designer and CEO – better as she declared herself a 'very proud pro-Israel American'. 'Israel is not only a Jewish value, it is a cherished American value,' she said.

The meeting commences. They look happy.

PHOTO: Obama meets Netanyahu in the Oval Office of the White House by @AP 's Pablo Martinez Monsivais twitter.com/CharlesDharapa… — Charles Dharapak (@CharlesDharapak) March 5, 2012

Television stations are broadcasting a joint appearance by Netanyahu and Obama from the White House that preceded their meeting.

Sitting side-by-side, the two leaders reiterate a mutual commitment to stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But what is really striking about the appearance is its rather off-the-cuff quality. They are saying face-to-face what each to this point has said only from behind a podium. There is no script and plenty of room for either to go off it. Here's part of what they said.

Obama spoke first.



"Our commitment to the history of Israel is rock solid. ... The United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to security. ..."We'll talk [in our meeting] about the regional issues that are taking place. I look forward to the prime minister's sharing with me his ideas. ... We will discuss the issues that continue to be a focus not only of our foreign policy but also the prime minister's."

He does not name Iran. The language is euphemistic. But Obama then mentions the Palestinians – a reminder of a strange quality of this round of meetings between the United States and Israel, that "the Palestinians" has not been an oft-heard phrase.

Now Obama's on to Iran: "And obviously, a large topic of conversation will be Iran. Let me reiterate. Number one: ... As I emphasized yesterday, it is profoundly in the interests [of both countries to stop Iran]. We do not want to see a nuclear arms race in one of the most volatile regions in the world. We do not want a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists. That's why we have worked so diligently to set up the most crippling sanctions ever."

He says there's still room for diplomacy to work. But the decision, he says, is ultimately that of the Iranian leadership.

"When I say all options are on the table, I mean it," Obama says. "Having said that, I know that both the prime minister and I prefer to resolve this diplomatically. We understand the cost of any military action."

Then Obama turns directly to Netanyahu.

"Prime Minister, we welcome you and we appreciate very much the friendship of our peoples."

Now Netanyahu. He calls the president's speech to Aipac "strong." Not at all what most observers would expect to be his reaction to the speech.

"Thank you for those kind words and thank you for that strong speech yesterday. ... Israel and the United Staes share common values... Iran's leaders know that, too. For them you are the Great Satan and we are the Little Satan. For them we are you and you are us. And on this last point, Mr. President, I think that they are right. We are you. And you are us."

"We are you and you are us." That is Netanyahu's message in front of the US president with the cameras rolling. It goes to the singular quality of US-Israeli relations that this phrase, on its face an expression of solidarity, has some ominous kernel packed inside it. Can the Israeli security situation and the US security situation be equated? Netanyahu equates the two, citing the view of some in the Iranian leadership: America is the Great Satan, Israel is the little Satan. The two are equal. But is the world view of Iran's hard-liners the same world view that Obama should use in assessing America's security situation? Netanyahu proposes that it is. We are you and you are us.

Sen. John McCain and others have called for "no room" between Israel and the United States on the question of Iran's nuclear program and other security questions. Those calls fight an enduring sense that there is in fact room between the Obama administration and the Israeli leadership. The relationship has at times been difficult, and despite this morning's nice words – and despite the recent need to act against a common rival – the differences have not been resolved.

Could Israel carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear program without US help?

After Obama's speech to Aipac, Netanyahu released a statement of appreciation for its most hawkish notes.

I very much appreciated the fact that President Obama reiterated his position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that all options are on the table. I also appreciated the fact that he made clear that when it comes to a nuclear-armed Iran, containment is simply not an option, and equally in my judgment, perhaps most important of all, I appreciated the fact that he said that Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

Israel must be able to act "by itself." Could this refer to specific weapons the United States could provide to Israel, including bunker-buster bombs, that would help the Israelis demolish Iran's nuclear program? Part of what Netanyahu says to Obama in their White House meeting today could be, 'If you won't strike with us, help us strike alone.' Although it's unclear whether Israel would attempt it, and whether such a proposition is any less risky as far as the United States sees it.

What would an Israeli strike on Iran look like? Two years ago the Center for Strategic and International Studies published a detailed analysis of possible war plans. Last month the New York Times analyzed how difficult a strike on Iran would be for Israel to carry out "alone."

The upshot of both long-ish reads is that an unaided attack on Iran by Israel would run a high risk of failure.

While not everyone in the United States may be following the moment-to-moment developments in the standoff with Iran, or the Aipac proceedings, Netanyahu is visiting America at a time when public opinion of Israel remains strongly favorable. A Gallup poll last month found that 71 percent of those polled have a favorable view of Israel, versus 19 percent for the Palestinian Authority and only 10 percent for Iran.

Here now is video of Obama and Netanyahu's statements before today's meeting at the White House.

One more poll now, on the American appetite for a potential military conflict with Iran. It's low.

The majority of Americans want the United States to "stay neutral," even if Israel attacks Iran, according to a newly published Pew poll.

The National Iranian American Council ran an ad in the Washington Post today urging President Obama to "say no to a war of choice with Iran."

The ad features an open letter saying that "not every challenge has a military solution." It is signed by an array of Army brass, including Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Sec. of State Colin Powell who apologized for his role in Powell's Feb 2003 presentation to the United Nations in favor of the Iraq war.

My colleague Chris McGreal has spent the weekend at the Aipac conference and covering Netanyahu's visit to the White House. Here he is with observations from the White House visit and some historical context:

Netanyahu looked a little tense, his hands firmly lodged on his splayed legs, as Obama welcomed him to the Oval Office. There was still the chilliness that has characterised the relationship since they first met as leaders three years ago, when the president mistakenly thought he could railroad the Israeli prime minister into halting the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.



Last year, Netanyahu established who was really in charge when he humiliated Obama by lecturing him in public at the White House on the Holocaust and Israel's history. They could barely look at each other. This time though there's the threat of war to worry about, so the pair decided to try and make nice in public. Obama once again assured Netanyahu that the Jewish state can rely on him. "The United States will always have Israel's back," he said for the third time in recent days. Netanyahu thanked the president for his speech to Aipac. The bit he honed in on was Obama's statement that Israel has the right to decide what is best for its own security. The tone in the Oval office changed. Netanyahu put on his grave voice. "Israel must have the ability, always, to defend itself, by itself against any threat," he told Obama. "When it comes to Israel's security, Israel has the sovereign right to make its own decisions. I believe that's why you appreciate Mr President that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself. After all, that's the very purpose of the Jewish state, to restore to the Jewish people control over our destiny. And that's why my supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate." So it was perfectly clear then. Netanyahu would like the world to think he is ready to bomb Iran. Obama would like the world to think he's opposed to the idea. Between those two positions they appear to have reached an accommodation: Israel will attack Iran if it must but it should stop talking about it. Whether it will come to that is a matter of speculation as intense as Iran's alleged effort to build a nuclear bomb. Yet it was clear from the Oval office encounter that Netanyahu has already scored a major victory. There was barely any mention of the Palestinians. Three years ago, Obama was promising to shift the weight of US power to drive Israel toward a deal with the Palestinians whether it really wants one or not. But the president of hope has been confronted with the prime minister of doom. Netanyahu sees only threats. The Arab Spring is a menace – more like an Arab Winter. Hamas is seeping in to the Palestinian power structure. And now there's Iran. Israel's threat of another war has at least saved Netanyahu from having to talk to Obama about his least favourite subject.

Headline: "Netanyahu Won't Attack Iran: (Probably)." That's what Daniel Levy argues in a Foreign Policy article that touches on the military challenges involved, on fears of Iranian retaliation – and on Netanyahu's desire, like Obama's, to win reelection:

Also to be factored in is the possibility of 2012 being an election year in Israel (though technically the current parliament could serve until October 2013). If Netanyahu does pursue early elections, as many pundits expect, then the political risk associated with an attack increases, heightened by the likelihood of a strike being depicted as an election ploy.

(h/t: Daily Dish)

That's all for now of our live coverage of Aipac and Netanyahu's White House visit. It appears that the Israeli prime minister's address to the conference is now scheduled for 10pm ET this evening. Chris McGreal is on the scene and will have a full report on what promises to be quite a speech. A quick roundup of where things stand:

• Netanyahu spoke of Israel acting alone on Iran. "Israel must have the ability, always, to defend itself, by itself against any threat," the prime minister told Obama. But both sides recognize the challenges of a military strike on Iran. At a minimum it is thought that Israel would need bunker-buster bombs and refueling planes bought from the United States to carry out the attack.

• "We are you, and you are us." So Netanyahu sought to frame the US interests in the standoff with Iran. But public opinion polls show that most Americans want the United States to "stay neutral" in the event of an Israeli invasion of Iran. As if they are saying: You may be us, but we are not you.

• Little mention of the Palestinians. A major diplomatic trip by the Israeli prime minister to Washington and barely a peep about the conflict that defines his country's political history and shapes its turbulent present.

• What now? With the much-hyped White House meeting between the two leaders now over, and with Obama's speech to Aipac over and done, how has the picture of the Iran standoff changed? How do these series of meetings look from the Iranian side? Sanctions on Iran won't end soon; they're clearly the focus of Obama's policy. A joint US-Israeli attack on Iran is apparently not in the offing. Israel reserves the right to attack "by itself" but the recent diplomacy underscores how much it needs its ally. And still no new promises from the American president.