The triumph of shared interests   Zalman Shoval 11-12-12 Policymakers in Jerusalem were ready for President Barack Obama's victory. The last meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held with U.S. political leaders before the elections was actually with three senior Democratic senators. Not one of them thought Netanyahu was meddling with the U.S. elections in favor of Governor Mitt Romney. On the contrary, they actually stressed the shared interests the U.S. and Israel have. In my columns, speeches and private meetings with U.S. administration officials over the past several months I kept making the point that regardless of who emerged victorious on Nov. 6, Israel would consider him an ally. True, the two countries have had their share of differences, even substantial ones, on various issues that are of paramount importance; it is quite obvious that Israel must avoid a confrontation with our ally, at all costs. We must come to terms with the realization that a miscalculation could be fertile ground for adverse consequences down the road. There is no way around that. The two sides continued to maintain professional ties all through Obama's first term; on security matters, which actually saw stepped-up bilateral cooperation and on the peace process with the Palestinians, with the prime minister's special envoy holding talks with the top political echelons in the administration. That said, it was only natural that on the Arab Spring and other major issues, the two sides agreed to disagree: Israel, which is an interested party in such foreign policy developments, could not see things through the same prism, resulting in diverging assessments. The problem with Iran is different, but the two sides have apparently begun to see eye-to-eye (the administration usually gives Netanyahu a heads-up on new initiatives to stop Iran's nuclear program). This shared mindset was on display during the recent United Nations General Assembly conference in New York, when both Netanyahu and Obama highlighted the same themes in their addresses to the U.N. delegates. In the coming months, perhaps even within several weeks, we will be able to tell whether the converging views are enough to reassure Israel. For the latter, the red line is when Iran has enough enriched uranium to assemble several nuclear bombs. As far as the U.S. is concerned, even once Iran reaches that point, there would still be enough time to prevent Iran from becoming a military nuclear power. Over the past several days, Washington has been sending out mixed messages on Iran. On the one hand, it ratcheted up the sanctions, but on the other hand, there is mounting evidence, in Iran and the U.S., that a new round of talks is in the offing. It is quite likely that the Islamic Republic would take advantage of these talks to move ahead in its nuclear program. R. Nicholas Burns, who served as undersecretary of state in George W. Bush's administration and is currently a professor at Harvard University, published an op-ed last week in which he listed the four pressing challenges facing Obama as he begins his second term. He mentioned Afghanistan and the turbulence in the Middle East, including Syria. He did not mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many in the U.S. share that view. Until not so long ago, the conventional wisdom in the hallways of government in Washington traced all the problems of the region to Israel and the Palestinians as the root cause, or even the only reason, for anti-American sentiment. It is a safe bet to assume that Obama and his advisers are well-aware of this shift. Will Obama, whose chief concern is healing the troubled U.S. economy, make a conscious decision to enter the Israel-Palestinian quagmire in his second term? The tightening relations between Obama and Netanyahu, if complemented by smart Israeli moves on the public relations and diplomacy front, might result in a more practical U.S. policy more in line with Israel's and reflecting the facts on the ground. Only a complete ignoramus (and we have plenty) would think that Obama is out to settle old scores with Netanyahu in his second term. World-class statesmen like Obama do not let their affection or otherwise toward people shape their polices; the U.S. has a strong interest in maintaining the strong bond with Israel and its leader; Obama knows full well that it is Netanyahu with whom he will have to deal and talk to throughout his second term. This is what will guide his policy decisions. Some Israeli politicians have been predicting doom and gloom as if Washington and Jerusalem are on the verge of a world war; these same politicians are trying to make some political hay out of that prediction. They are probably going to have egg on their faces.