A convergence of sorts?

Of late:

1. Ahmadinejad said Iran had won the nuclear game although their economy is in shambles.
2. Israel held a massive military exercise in the Mediterranean Gulf some thought was meant as a rehearsal to an attack on Iran's nukes.
3. Mohammed ELBaradei warned that an attack on Iran's nuke would lead to a ball of fire.
4. The Gaza cease fire was ditched as rockets were lobbed back into Israel.
5. Secretary of State Rice quietly visited Israel.
6. Sarkozy visited Israel, where Netanyahu told him Jerusalem will "never be divided".
7. Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen is going to Israel tonight.
8. A Druze Israeli border security agent supposedly shot and killed himself while providing security for the Sarkozy visit, something determined sans investigation.
9. Rumors were swirling Tuesday that IAF had already taken out Iran's nukes.
10. John Bolton publicly speculated that Israel might use the interim between election day and the inauguration to take out the nukes.

Sounds like a giant complex game of chicken. Iran wants the deterrence, prestige and bargaining power of having nukes, something Israel desperately doesn't want them to possess with Hizballah and Hamas on their doorstep. It's quite certain many Israelis think a future President Barack Hussein Obama would more resemble Carter than Bush and they don't trust the unconditional talks he's proposing.

Meanwhile, Bush's legacy is wrapped up in Middle East democracy, hardly a huge success at the moment. What does he have to lose from allowing a nuke takeout strike?

Obama actually seems to hold great power over this situation but has no real power yet. Talking about it publicly might fan the flames even higher or confuse world leaders, not to mention making him seem arrogant to the voters. While this sounds like one of those infamous "tipping points" we so often hear about it's hard to tell whether it might be another Ritter-like false alarm. But we've been letting hope and diplomacy play out for awhile now, with no results.