Obama to the Iranian question is the greatest obstacle for foreign policy issues, in the election campaign. The problem involves several aspects: the relationship with Israel and with the powerful American Jewish lobby, the use of armed forces at the stars and stripes, that for a large part of U.S. public opinion has been abused in recent years in scenarios that eventually were seen far away by the interest the American factor in the strict sense of the conflict with Iran, on which you have even less certainty of the conclusion and results in situations that seemed safer as Iraq and Afghanistan, which were later revealed highly problematic. The outgoing President must use a tactic that does not compromise on positions that may seem either too soft or too stiff. Perhaps Obama is sincerely opposed to military intervention and its policy is to insist on diplomatic pressure, also the Iranian election result that penalized Ahmadinejad plays in his favor, but the will of Netanyahu goes in the opposite direction, why not share the possibility that the results diplomatic blocking progress on Iran’s atomic bomb and opts for an attack that some analysts give for sure in a few months. This uncompromising attitude of the government in Tel Aviv has forced Obama to an opening, for the truth rather than explicit, for a possible military solution and the recognition of Israeli sovereignty to take the decision independently of preemption. It ‘a concession logically due mainly to the powerful Jewish lobby, which has repeatedly accused the U.S. president to support the Palestinian struggle to the detriment of Israel. In fact it has never been so, the U.S. administration, has always supported, at least with regard to official steps, an Israeli government with which, however, often had serious differences of opinion. In the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, one can not blame Obama for a clear position, beyond the customary statement that has been able to lead to a conclusion despite the difficult negotiations. The impression is that the U.S. top job he never wanted to offend the Jewish lobby in the U.S., not to compromise a judgment already not positive. Recognizing the possibility of military use alongside Israel or allow an independent plan of attack can mean the opening of a large credit line, which until now there has been. However, there is only the Jewish lobby, Obama must continue to emphasize its difference with Republican administrations for a frantic search for an alternative to the peaceful resolution of any dispute. A Democratic candidate to have submitted a military strike as the only resolution of the Iranian case would lose a substantial amount of votes. In this Obama tries to gain time, as indeed do the Iranians, hoping in the effects of sanctions and now the internal divisions in the conservative power elite. But for the U.S. presidential elections are still missing eight months, difficult, without significant results, to Israel to desist from war against Tehran purposes: in case of war throughout the campaign would be transformed and that is objectively difficult to make a budget between the costs and benefits a decision with respect to another. A middle way would be to give support to U.S. forces and bases without direct official involvement, which would be difficult to disprove, and that would be interpreted as a decision Pilate. If the U.S. should be at war, against a bitter enemy of Iran, during the campaign, less than a win to guarantee an instant success and quick clear, could prefigure a declines in support for Obama, not so noticeable for other issues, which can modify the weather so far positive for his reelection. The Republican Party could exploit this opportunity, thanks to his increased contacts with the Jewish lobby, but only on condition of having a candidate of a certain strength, which seems far away from the experience, however, in the wake of a possible emotional failure, could open unexpected openings for what will be the contender for Obama.