News analysis

It's hard to get a handle on it — few Israelis are willing to talk about it on the record — but there's been a palpable shift in thinking in Israel about launching an airstrike on Iran. Nowhere more than in the counter-terrorism community itself.

Even among the more reasoned — and moderate — voices there, the tone has moved from cautious optimism that an Israeli strike on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities could be avoided to gloomy inevitability.

---

"It's no longer a question of if but when," replied one Israeli analyst when asked if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would respond militarily if Iran crossed his "red lines" and acquired a nuclear bomb.

Several analysts ticked off different factors behind the change of heart:

• A growing realization that sanctions — no matter how robust — won't stop Tehran from crossing Netanyahu's "red lines" and posing an existential threat to the nation.
• Fueled by the Arab Spring, a sense of chaos swirling around Israel's borders has led Israelis to vote once again for the tough-minded Netanyahu  — albeit in fewer numbers  — and to sympathize with his hardline policy of protecting Israel at all costs, with walls, fences, and airstrikes, if necessary.
• There was a belief  — call it a hope  — that Netanyahu would not "go it alone" against Iran  — that President Barack Obama would prevail upon him to avoid any unilateral action that might trigger an unforeseen Arab conflagration against Israel. But some Israeli analysts say that Netanyahu seems much less worried than Obama about a lethal Arab response to an airstrike on Iran.

Only a few months ago the Israeli consensus on Iran felt much different. At the height of last fall's Iran–Israel crisis, former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak  — once Netanyahu's boss in an elite commando unit  — not only had the prime minister's ear, but seemed to counter his most hawkish impulses. Then, in late November, Barak quit the cabinet – and Israeli politics.

After elections last month, a new centrist party and leader were swept onto the political scene. Yair Lapid – a charismatic, former news anchorman – was expected to pressure Netanyahu into softer positions. So far, just the opposite has happened.

"It seems that Lapid is not as committed as Bibi (Netanyahu) to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear…(Lapid) is not being regarded as a military authority in Israel and he might not have the weight to balance Bibi," said Dr Boaz Ganor, director of the Herzliya Institute for Counter-Terrorism.

Ganor went on to say that  — ultimately  — the order to strike Iran will be most influenced by the next Israeli defense minister. It now looks likely that will be the even more hawkish vice premier, Moshe Yaalon (unless Barak returns to the fold).

With some reports suggesting that Iran is only months away from a nuclear bomb, the Obama administration is sticking to its support for tough sanctions, but also saying that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has backed up his rhetoric: last week, the Israeli Air Force summarily destroyed a Syrian convoy of sophisticated rockets — inside Syria — allegedly heading to Lebanon and into the hands of Hezbollah, a sworn enemy of Israel.

"In Israel, there is wall to wall consent that Israel should do whatever it takes so that Hezbollah does not get access to these dangerous materials," Ganor said.

Will Iran be next?

Jim Maceda is an NBC News foreign correspondent based in London who has just returned from an assignment in Israel.

Related:

Biden: 'Still time' for direct US-Iran talks

Analysis: Israel's airstrike likely to complicate Syria crisis

Surprisingly centrist vote has Netanyahu reaching to the left

ANALYSIS

TEL AVIV, Israel — Even before he was nominated to become the next U.S. secretary of defense, the bad-mouthing of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel had already begun.

Warnings flew like salvos across the U.S. media and beyond: Hagel is soft on Iran and no friend of Israel. Tea Party and Republican critics of the moderate and pragmatic Hagel smelled blood.

Ted Cruz, a freshman senator from Texas, said that Hagel "would make war with Iran more likely because he's too nice to Iran."

---

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Hagel would be "the most antagonistic secretary of defense towards the state of Israel in our nation's history."

So you would expect to see the vitriol flowing here in Israel, especially just days before a crucial parliamentary election — on Jan. 22 — in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is struggling to head off a late populist surge by an even more right-wing candidate.

But there have been no anti-Hagel protests outside the U.S. Embassy and no angry Israelis heard on radio talk shows. In fact, reaction to all the uproar back home has been muted.

'Dark cloud'
It's true that Israelis in general aren't happy with the nomination. "It represents a dark cloud over the relationship between the two countries, and it borders on hostility," said Simon Schiffer, a political analyst with the Yediot Ahronot daily newspaper.

Hagel's willingness to engage with Iran and its client, Hamas, upsets most Israelis, Schiffer noted. But he went on to say that “U.S. policy towards Israel is set in the White House, and there you can find today a president who has a very warm approach to Israel but at the same time a very angry and cold policy towards Netanyahu and his government.”

Related: Hagel — a man without a party

So far, Israeli government reaction has been minimal and mixed. Reuven Rivlin, the powerful speaker of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, told The Associated Press he is worried about Hagel "because of his statements in the past and his stance toward Israel."

But Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, wrapping up a trip to the U.S., told a group of major Jewish organizations that he personally knew and worked with Hagel and found him to be "a decent and fair interlocutor who believes in the natural partnership between Israel and the United States."

Until Sunday there had been not a peep from Netanyahu himself, whose "iron fist" approach to Iran, Hamas and the Palestinian territories seems diametrically opposed to Hagel's instinct for dialogue.

"I do not interfere in the political appointments of the U.S. president. It is his prerogative,'' Netanyahu told Israel's Army Radio. "Congress decides and confirms, and we will work with whoever is chosen.''

One Israeli official told NBC News that Netanyahu's silence doesn't mean he's not angry.

After making the mistake of “backing the wrong horse — [Gov. Mitt] Romney — during the last U.S. election, he's not willing to play that game again,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak on the record about policy matters.

'Revenge' for Romney?
Sever Plocker, an influential Israeli commentator, went further by suggesting that Obama picked Hagel as “revenge” for Netanyahu's public support for Romney.

Hagel hasn't yet defended his positions before the U.S. Senate, but he has faced the court of public opinion, emphasizing in recent days his "unequivocal support for Israel." On Iran, he told Defense Department officials Wednesday that he also strongly "supports multilateral sanctions against Iran and that Tehran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear warheads."

Hagel may have gotten into some hot water with a comment — made years ago in Washington — that “the political reality is that …the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.” But on Monday one of the largest and most active of those "Jewish lobbies" -- the National Jewish Democratic Council -- released a statement saying it believes Hagel “will follow the president's lead in providing unrivaled support for Israel — on strategic cooperation, missile defense programs and leading the world against Iran's nuclear program.”

The consensus here is that Netanyahu may enjoy watching Hagel fight for his nomination in Washington, but staying out of the fight is probably a smart move.

Related stories:

Senators signal tough fight for Hagel

Full Israel coverage from NBC News

KABUL, Afghanistan — Nabilla Achmadi should be a poster child for the United States intervention in Afghanistan: She attends high school and is a member of the the country’s cricket team, both of which would have been unthinkable under the Taliban.

Despite this, she has decidedly mixed view of the foreign soldiers in her country. 

"It is time for America to go," she told NBC News, then added: "But after they do, the Taliban will recapture Afghanistan and their cruel rule will begin again, so maybe the U.S. should stay here."

---

Meet Afghanistan's 1st female rapper

What’s the first thing she feared after a US pullout? "That [as a woman] I won’t be able to play cricket again!"

Nabilla’s attitude speaks for many in Afghanistan who are weary of war and foreign soldiers’ boots on their land. But on the other hand, the specter of life under the emboldened and ultra-conservative Taliban and without the millions in foreign aid haunts them.  These competing emotions will hang over this week’s crucial one-on-one meeting between Presidents Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai in Washington. 

As Taliban regroup, victims battle for 'free' Afghanistan

Amid heightened tensions between the two countries, Obama and Karzai are set to discuss the future beyond 2014, when most foreign troops are set to withdraw from Afghanistan.

President Obama will host Karzai and his delegation at the White House for bilateral meetings on Friday, the White House press office annunced on Monday, adding that the president "looks forward to welcoming the Afghan delegation to Washington, and discussing our continued transition in Afghanistan, and our shared vision of an enduring partnership between the United States and Afghanistan."

"The stability of Afghanistan, of the entire region and even the national security of the United States depends very much on (the Obama-Karzai) relationship," said Omar Sharifi, director of the American Center for Afghanistan Studies. "If Afghanistan loses or damages its relationship with the U.S., the only ones who will benefit will be those responsible for 9/11 and who want our destruction."

Strained relationship
Despite more than a decade as allies — and a cost to America of more than 2,000 lives and $600 billion in treasure — U.S.-Afghan relations have not been this strained since the 2001 toppling of the Taliban.

In an interview last month with NBC News’ Atia Abawi, Karzai sharply criticized the United States, blaming American and NATO forces for some of the growing insecurity in his country.  

EXCLUSIVE: US, NATO behind 'insecurity' in Afghanistan, Karzai says

Obama and Karzai will set out to put some meat on the bones of a strategic partnership they agreed to last year.  At the time, they committed to an American presence in Afghanistan for at least 10 years beyond 2014.  

At the top of the list - according to a Pentagon spokesman — is deciding how many American troops will remain.  According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, Obama is considering whether to keep a brigade of about 3,000 troops focused largely on hunting down al-Qaida and other militants, or going to a maximum of about 20,000 U.S. forces that would look after counter-terrorism and the training up Afghan soldiers. 

Obama is reportedly leaning towards a lighter footprint and a mission focused on killing or capturing terrorists. According to some Afghan analysts, Karzai prefers the maximum option because more American trainers would likely mean better Afghan recruits.  It would also take some of the glare off of American special forces and their despised intrusions on Afghan homes and civilians during controversial night raids.

The presidents will also have to grapple with how fast the remaining 68,000 American troops still in Afghanistan will be drawn-down before 2014.  Again, Obama reportedly wants to move faster than his generals. Karzai, meanwhile, wants a slower drawdown, as well as better weapons and equipment.

Neither side wants a repeat of what happened after the Soviet Army abruptly pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989 — the vacuum left behind then was filled by Islamic militants, warlords, civil war, and the birth of the Taliban.

ANALYSIS: Is peace really in the air in Afghanistan?

Another major sticking point is the fate American-built Bagram Prison, in particular 57 prisoners who have been acquitted in Afghan courts but are being held despite this, according to the Afghan presidency.

Obama could order U.S. troops  — as he did in Iraq — to leave Afghanistan precipitously if Obama and Karzai can’t resolve the biggest obstacle to their security agreement: Karzai has insisted that all U.S. soldiers remaining after 2014 be subject to Afghan justice. Obama, meanwhile, has called any violation of the US military’s immunity from Afghan law a deal breaker. Many analysts here think Karzai, in the end, has to cave in.

Even with an announcement of a historic deal on this trip, a decision on U.S. troop levels and financial aid through 2024, there’s no guarantee that such a commitment would bring peace.  After all, the war has already killed an estimated 20,000 Afghan civilians and 10,000 Afghan security forces, according to the BBC. 

After 10 years of Karzai's rule, has life improved in Afghanistan?

Whatever the outcome of this week’s talks, many Afghans share Karzai’s obvious resentment, but still feel the United States’ should help.

"They have invaded our country, they should leave Afghanistan," said Sayed Nadeem, a shopkeeper in Kabul. "But they need to fix problems, first security, then economy and then the rebuilding of this nation."

Retired pharmacist Haji Mohammed Ishaq, 80, believes that all the presidential summits and nice words don’t really matter. "People are tired of war," he said. "We have fought amongst ourselves too much. I’m hopeful Afghans will now become brothers again."

Kiko Itasaka and Akbar Shinwari contributed to this report. 

 Jim Maceda is an NBC News foreign correspondent based in London currently ending an assignment in Kabul. He has covered Afghanistan since the 1980s. 

More world stories from NBC News:

• US drone strikes kill at least 18 Pakistani militants, sources tell NBC
• Assad gives defiant speech as Syrian rebels edge closer to Damascus
• Chavez ally re-elected, cementing position as possible caretaker president
• 'Nobody helped us for an hour,' Indian rape witness says
• 'Strong young woman': Taliban shooting victim Malala leaves hospital
• ANALYSIS: Is peace really in the air in Afghanistan?
• Drug-resistant malaria threatens deadly global 'nightmare'
• From alcohol to kites: An A to Z guide to the Islamic Republic of 'Banistan'

Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

News analysis

KABUL, Afghanistan - There’s something wafting in the air in Afghanistan, and for once it’s not the smell of detritus, diesel or cordite.  People – rivals, even enemies -- are talking about peace. Not just talks about talks – those have been going on – and off – for a couple of years now.  But serious, genuine moves toward reconciliation are – for the first time since I can remember – actually squeezing into an otherwise depressing narrative of stalemate and loss.

Take the Pakistani government’s Dec. 31 release from prison of eight former Taliban members, including Taliban leader Mullah Omar’s right-hand man and former justice minister, Mullah Turabi. This move, Afghan analysts say, is part of a new strategy, formulated in a November meeting between Afghan and Pakistani officials in Islamabad. The release, they say, was more than a goodwill gesture between bitter rivals. The clear hope was that freed former Taliban officials with the stature of Turabi would serve as emissaries, clearing the way for peace talks between Hamid Karzai’s government and the current Taliban leadership – based in Pakistan – and with the Pakistan government’s blessing. 

This was no isolated move. Eighteen other jailed Taliban were released earlier in December, among them men who used to command Taliban units in the field. Not surprisingly, official Afghan reaction has been quick and positive. Ismail Qasimyar, a ranking member of the High Peace Council, Karzai’s appointed group of diplomats seeking reconciliation, said the gesture "shows the Pakistani authorities have opened a new chapter for positive cooperation with Afghanistan." It’s the first time since the war began that I’ve seen Afghanistan and Pakistan treat each other as potential partners, not spoilers.

Pakistan’s military, believed by many to be supporting the Afghan Taliban as a means of leveraging its influence with its chaotic neighbor, is now jumping on the peace bandwagon as well. And it’s not just Pakistan’s Army Chief Ashfaq Kayani, the alleged driving force behind the new rapprochement, who is changing his tune.

---

Buried in the pre-holiday build-up, a semi-secret meeting took place outside Paris between 20 key Afghan players, under the auspices of a French think tank. Afghan government and opposition figures, and, for the first time, insurgent leaders, including the Taliban and its offshoot, Hezb-e-Islami, all sat down together. There were no breakthroughs, or even concessions, but the point was to get all the warring sides to do something they hadn’t done in some 30 years: talk directly to each other. 

Officially, the Taliban stuck to its public positions. It called the Afghan constitution illegitimate and refused to negotiate with the "U.S. puppet" Karzai government, but a positive momentum does seem to be building. More "secret" talks are set to follow. The United Nations office in Kabul has invited the Taliban to a conference there. Meanwhile, an official Taliban bureau will soon open in Qatar for parallel talks with the United States.

Watch World News videos on NBCNews.com

Even the much-feared warlord and former Mujahedeen commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was labeled a global terrorist by the U.S. and has been on the lam for the past dozen years, is now launching his own peace balloons. In an interview that appeared in Wednesday’s British "Daily Telegraph," the man who, as prime minister in the 1990s, oversaw the brutal flattening of much of Kabul, spells out a 10-point peace plan, calling on all Afghan brothers to unite, asking "all the stakeholders within Afghanistan to join hands for a workable solution for Afghanistan and resolve disputes.’’

Cynics – and there are many – aren’t buying any of it. Their arguments are well-known: They say civil war will break out as soon as the U.S. and its allies go home; that the moderate Taliban may want to put down their AKs and become a political force, but it’s the hard-core who rule, and who believe they’re winning the war; that all the peace feelers are just ways of buying time while the Afghan Taliban ratchets up its attacks on local security forces and the Pakistani Taliban doubles down on its side of the border, most recently killing a group of female NGO and aid workers.

All that rings true. But then I take a deep breath –- and smell that very different smell -– and ask: could this really be the turning point I’ve been writing about for so long?

Jim Maceda is an NBC News foreign correspondent based in London and currently on assignment in Kabul, who’s covered Afghanistan since the 1980s.

More world stories from NBC News:

• Drug-resistant malaria threatens deadly global 'nightmare'
• From alcohol to kites: An A to Z guide to the Islamic Republic of 'Banistan'
• UK police: Attackers dressed as Oompa Loompas beat man
• Vatican launches swipe-card security system
• US sailors sue Japan's TEPCO for post-quake radiation exposure

Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

News analysis

Updated at 4:40 a.m. ET: CAIRO, Egypt — Constitutions are often messy affairs. Our own Constitutional Convention, in 1787, was convened secretly, behind guarded doors. Many delegates were suspicious it was all a ploy by George Washington to wrest power from personal freedoms.  Some delegates walked out before the hard work even began. And once the writing was finished, four of the 13 states didn't even ratify it.

But few constitutions have generated the road bumps — or media coverage — that Egypt’s new, post-Hosni Mubarak constitution has. 

---

There are several reasons why this particular document is getting so much attention. It’s not only because it would detail Egypt’s future government and the values upheld by it. All constitutions do that. What makes this constitutional process unusual is the way in which it’s been hijacked by the political crisis playing out in Egypt today — a crisis that pits Islamists, led by Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi, against their opponents, led primarily by Egypt's judges.

Liberals, Christians left out as Islamists back Egypt's draft constitution

When Egypt’s first "Constitutional Assembly" met to begin its work, the 100 delegates knew they were embarking on something historic — for the first time in Egypt’s long history, they were tasked to produce a document that showcased and protected Egypt’s fledgling democracy. But the euphoria didn't last long. Within months, Egypt’s Islamist-laden parliament — the body that created the assembly— was dissolved by court order, driven by mostly Mubarak-appointed judges.

Shortly thereafter, a series of legal challenges threatened the constitution-writing panel itself. By this time it had become clear to non-Islamist delegates that the Islamists on the panel were determined to write a defense of Islamic aspirations. More than one-quarter of them — representing secular Egyptians, liberals,  Christians and other minorities — walked out. It appeared the panel, by then entirely Islamist, would be dissolved by the judges.

It’s with this backdrop that Morsi made public his controversial decree last Thursday. In a sweeping retort to the judges, he declared that his every ruling, the remaining upper house of parliament, and the Constitutional Assembly, all be above the law. He gave the assembly two more months to complete its work and offer up a final document for ratification. That, as we now know, triggered the turmoil in the streets which some are already calling Egypt's "Second Revolution." Two young Egyptians have been killed, and hundreds wounded in clashes between pro- and anti-Morsi protesters and riot police. But the international media still calls it a "constitutional crisis."

Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood colleagues then decided to go for broke, and gamble that a pro-Islamist constitution rammed through the assembly would be ratified by the Egyptian people.

That is far from a certainty. More than 200,000 opponents demonstrated in a massive show of support in Tahrir Square on Tuesday night, calling Morsi’s decree — and the new constitution – illegal. 

"This is nonsensical and one of the steps that shouldn't be taken, given the background of anger and resentment to the current constitutional assembly," opposition leader and former head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, told Reuters. 

‘You had your revolution. This one is ours’
Another large anti-Morsi protest is now scheduled for Friday. And the Muslim Brotherhood is organizing its own "million-man" march on Saturday, one it now says will not end at Tahrir Square to avoid any confrontation with protesters who have turned the Square into a "Muslim Brotherhood-Free Zone."

Khaled Mahmoud, a 26-year-old volunteer medic who has set up a makeshift clinic for wounded protesters just off the Square, told NBC News he would tell Saturday’s would-be Muslim Brotherhood protesters, "Step back. You had your revolution. This one is ours."

But now — in yet another morphing from its intended role — Egypt’s new constitution has become a pawn in Morsi’s exit from all the chaos. The assembly, which, again, had two more months to work, is racing through its completion in just 48 hours.

More Egypt coverage from NBC News

As the Constitutional Assembly put each article to a vote Thursday afternoon, liberal delegate Mohamed Mohyeldin objected.

"There is a rush in the voting, we should slow down the pace, so that we do not give the impression that we have a problem that we are afraid of and are running away from. We have two months," he said.

But on State TV the speaker, Hossam al Gheryani, said in reply, "We are waiting for those who want to return…we would be happy for them to participate ... [but] there are those who said they wanted nothing to do with this Constitutional Assembly."

Bishop Paula was among the angry delegates who refused to return and vote Thursday.

"We know already the result of the vote because of the unbalanced [Islamist] formation of the assembly. The result is settled whether we go or not," said the representative of the Orthodox Church on live TV. 

And what about the constitution itself? As it rolls off a government website, it appears to be in every way the expression of a pro-Islamist society about half the nation hoped for, and the other half feared. It would not only make conservative Sharia law the law of the land, but expand that, constitutional experts here say, to "dangerous" levels. Besides Islam, only Christianity and Judaism — fellow Abrahamic religions — would be recognized. 

Ominously, its Article 11 reads: "The State and society shall be committed to safeguarding and protecting ethics and public morals." One expert on Egyptian TV warned that this would lay the groundwork for the appearance of "vice and virtue" (vigilante) squads.

Morsi’s speech to the nation Thursday night explained the reasons behind his decree, and set the timeline for a national vote on the new, fast-tracked constitution. He has 30 days to conclude the ballot. If it passes — and the Muslim Brotherhood has yet to lose a vote — it will allow Morsi to remove a large monkey from his back. He could then transfer his legislative powers to a new (likely Islamist) parliament, elected within two months of ratifying the constitution.

So, in theory, the current "constitutional crisis" could be over in three months. Or there could be a new, even more turbulent one, further splitting apart the nation.

Jim Maceda is an NBC News foreign correspondent based in London who is currently on assignment in Cairo. He has covered the Middle East since the 1970s.

More world stories from NBC News:

• Leveson report on Rupert Murdoch, son: Evidence suggests 'cover-up'
• ANALYSIS: UN's Palestinian statehood vote is victory for Abbas
• Tobacco industry uses trade pacts to try to snuff out anti-smoking laws
• ANALYSIS: Crisis tests Egyptians' constitution
• Syrians risk lives in battle to protect nation's ancient sites
• Arafat's exhumation: Palestinians' desire for truth might be dashed again
• Chinese paper falls for Onion 'sexiest man alive' spoof

Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

 

 

 

 

News analysis

LONDON — The bunting’s down, the confetti swept away. The U.S. elections are over and President Barack Obama, the winner of four more years in power, can now cast an eye beyond the water’s edge — to those thorny international problems that were bad enough before the vote and have only festered since then.

On the top of Obama’s in-tray: Syria. The civil war there is relentless. Opposition sources say at least 38,000 people have been killed. Syrian leader Bashar Assad pledges he will live and die in Syria. Only a puppet, he says, would step down or flee his nation for exile.

---

 

Every effort by the United Nations to end the fighting has been stymied by Russia and China vetoes. It is no wonder that, hours after Obama’s re-election, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that the crisis in Syria would be one of the first topics they would discuss.

Collective pressure has not worked and, with the need to appeal to his liberal, Democratic base now removed in a second term, Obama may harden his stance and agree to arm the Syrian rebels under certain conditions.

As one British official told Reuters on Thursday: "We want to put everything (back) on the table."

World leaders welcome Obama's 2nd term — but many challenges wait on his doorstep

That could mean forming, along with Cameron and other allies, a Libya-style military response which, in turn, might include air strikes and a no-fly zone.

Cameron summed up the dire situation in remarks released in London on Thursday.

"Look, let’s be frank. What we’ve done over the past 18 months hasn’t been enough," he said.

Top 10 foreign policy issues facing Obama

Still, enforcing a no-fly zone without a U.N. mandate would be fraught with problems. Expect to see Obama finding a way to arm some rebels if they get their house in order and unite around principles the United States can support.

Ticking time bomb?
Iran is next on Obama’s to-fix list. Can anyone forget Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ticking bomb whiteboard presentation at the U.N. General Assembly? With the sweep of a red Sharpie, Netanyahu claimed that Iran will have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb by early 2013.

Victorious Obama 'more determined' in face of challenges

U.S. intelligence believes Iran will not have a weapon before 2014, and in his first term Obama has opted to use that time to allow tough sanctions to bite.

But Netanyahu argues that sanctions will not work, and that the Iranians can speed up the bomb-making process — it is one of many points of discord between Obama and Netanyahu, raising U.S.-Israeli tensions. 

Now that he's won, six splitting headaches waiting for Obama

My colleague, Martin Fletcher, writes that many Israelis fear Obama — again, with his re-election pressures gone — may now try to negotiate a deal directly with Tehran that could leave Israel exposed.

Or Obama may stay the course in his second term, continuing to apply pressure through sanctions, while neither flashing Israel a green or red light to strike Iran. But Obama’s reluctance to get involved militarily in Iran is unlikely to change.

'Sleeping bear'
It is difficult to mention Syria and Iran without turning to Russia. The "sleeping bear" which, led by the mercurial Vladimir Putin, seems to counter American diplomatic efforts at every turn. 

When asked what are the three top issues facing U.S.-Russian relations, Michael McFaul, the American ambassador in Moscow, ticks them off without missing a beat are: Syria, Iran and missile defense.

As anti-US policies multiply, should next president treat Russia as friend or foe?

The latter is a red line for Russia. The placing of a NATO anti-missile defense shield — Washington says to stop missiles fired from Iran — near Russia’s border with Europe. But there is some cause for hope that, in his final term in office, Obama will find the "space" to compromise.

In March, Obama was caught by a live microphone saying as much to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev (this later became a talking point for Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who said: "When the president of the United States is speaking with the leader of Russia, saying he can be more flexible after the election, that is an alarming and troubling development.")

But it remains difficult to know how concretely Obama can compromise. A Republican-led House of Representatives will oppose any Obama administration attempt to offer classified information about the missile shield to placate the Russians.

NBCNews.com's The World is Watching series

There is talk of Obama putting on a charm offensive in his second term. McFaul told Russian radio this week that Obama would like to visit Russia soon — but so far, since the "resetting" of the button in U.S.-Russian relations, Obama has watched Putin crack down on pro-democracy protesters and attack symbols of American values, like shutting down USAID and Radio Liberty inside Russia. 

Down-ballot races showed deep ideological, regional divides across US

Instead, Obama could choose in a second term to focus more on what are perhaps easier issues, like adoptions and visas.

"The next phase ... has to do with a hundred small things," McFaul told the Moscow Times. "And it’s hard to keep our governments focused on a hundred small things." But the big things may remain too big to handle.

China issues go beyond trade
There are — of course — many other issues in Obama’s inbox waiting for his attention: tensions with China, for instance, go beyond issues of trade.

On Thursday, as China marked its once-in-a-decade transition to new leadership, a U.S. government report said the emerging super-power is just two years away from deploying submarine-launched nuclear weapons, adding a sea leg to its nuclear arsenal of at least 240 nuclear bombs.

Suspicion of US rife as White House contenders batter China

The worry is that China is the only original nuclear weapons state that is expanding its nuclear force. 

But what to do about China is just one of many dilemmas for Obama.

He also needs to decide how to stop the spread of al-Qaida in the Middle East and Africa, whether to continue to use drones to strike terrorist targets, how to deal with the new governments emerging from the Arab Spring, and how he will approach the seemingly intractable Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.

And — in Afghanistan — Obama faces a decision as to whether to end the war there in 2014, or, as some military commanders have hinted, part company with his anti-war political "base" and keep some 15-20,000 U.S. troops in country for years to come.

Cleary, Obama’s in-tray is full of challenges, and a four-year term is awfully short. But at least the distractions of his re-election are behind him. Obama can now look forward.  As he likes to say, "there’s a lot of work to do." 

More world stories from NBC News:

• Iranian jets attack US military drone, Pentagon officials say
• Assad: 'I have to live in Syria and I have to die in Syria'
• Guatemalans huddle in streets after earthquake kills dozens
  Iranian missiles hitting Afghan soil, official says
• China launches once-a-decade changing of the guard
• Ex-oil man and son of bootlegger to be next Anglican leader - reports

Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook