Netanyahu's red lines mark split with US Benjamin Netanyahu has manoeuvred himself into a precarious diplomatic position. For the past few weeks, the Israeli prime minister has been in open, ill-tempered disagreement with his country's most important ally on the most important national security issue facing the Jewish state. Despite repeated attempts to calm the rhetoric between Israel and the US over Iran's nuclear programme, the spat shows no sign of abating. In a surprise move, the Israeli prime minister last week took his message straight to the American people, appearing on several television channels to explain his differences with Washington and reinforce his diplomatic demands. Mr Netanyahu made clear once again that he wants the US administration under Barack Obama to issue a "red line" for Iran's nuclear programme - with a commitment either to take or support military action should this line be crossed. He made his plea despite repeated statements from senior US officials rejecting his demand. Today more than ever, the gulf between Washington and Israel is there for all to see, including decision-makers in Tehran. Unless the two sides can agree on a common line soon, the over-arching goal of Israeli diplomacy for the past three years - the creation of a united international front against Iran - will move further beyond reach. Outside the Netanyahu camp, Israeli concern over the latest developments is palpable. Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israel's military intelligence and the current director of Israel's Centre for National Security Studies, joined the chorus of critics in a recent interview. He took aim at the incessant war rhetoric emanating from the Israeli government, accusing Mr Netanyahu and his defence minister Ehud Barak of going "too far" and turning "the screw one time too many." The harsh response to all this from the diplomatic and military leadership in the US has harmed deterrence. The impression has been given that Israel is interfering in internal American politics," Mr Yadlin told the Haaretz daily. This is why we now see such tension between the two countries. Instead of Washington and Jerusalem slinging arrows together at Iran, they are slinging arrows at each other. On the face of it, Mr Netanyahu's strategy is not difficult to explain: For almost a year now, he and other Israeli leaders have talked up the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, warning that time for a diplomatic solution is running out. The steady stream of anonymous leaks and official declarations created a frenzy of speculation, which in turn helped mobilise the international community against Iran. Sanctions against Tehran were tightened substantially, and world powers embarked on a last-ditch attempt to resolve the nuclear stand-off through diplomacy. Mr Netanyahu's defenders argue correctly that these actions may not have taken place without the implied threat of an Israeli strike. More recently, however, there have been unmistakeable signs that Israel's escalating rhetoric is backfiring. Alarmed by the prospect of a broader regional war, opponents of a strike both inside Israel and abroad are now making their voices heard more clearly and more frequently than ever before. Indeed, the spat with Washington can easily be read as part of a broader pushback against the idea of an Israeli strike on Iran. The message from the US and from European capitals to Mr Netanyahu rings louder every day: now is not the time for an attack. Adding further spice to the simmering debate is, of course, the looming US presidential election in November. Whether by design or by default, Mr Netanyahu's criticism of current US policy has given the Republicans a useful line of attack against President Obama, who stands accused of "throwing Israel under the bus." Israel's prime minister has repeatedly denied that he is interfering in the US political cycle, but is it hard to dispute that his recent interventions have turned US policy towards Israel and Iran into a recurring theme of the 2012 campaign. In Israel, at least, there is now widespread, genuine puzzlement at the political path taken by Mr Netanyahu: Is he counting on a victory for Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for the US presidency? Does he expect that any ill feelings will be quickly forgotten, no matter who occupies the White House next year? Or does he believe that his campaign for a US "red line" will further ratchet up the pressure on Tehran, even at the cost of turbulence in the US-Israeli relationship? Whatever the answer to those questions, the current price of Mr Netanyahu's campaign is clear: a rift with Israel's most important ally, and a gaping split in the international alliance against Iran.