Which brings us to the most important factor in the October timing of an Israeli strike: the November 2012 presidential elections in the United States. Netanyahu sees a moment of opportunity that will likely not be repeated for years to come. From late September to early November, White House decision-making will be driven by President Obama’s electoral needs — not his diplomatic policy. The mullahs are unloved in America, and many American pundits and politicians are on record supporting Israel’s right to defend itself militarily against an Iranian threat. If Israel goes ahead with a strike, can Obama afford to be seen as trying to prevent it, effectively protecting the mullahs of Teheran in the process?

Well I don't know, can Obama be seen as opposing an attack by Israel? This article says No, he can't afford it. Otherwise he will be hurting his chance of re-election.

Oh why's that? Well that's where the fun starts with this article. The author pretends that the reason Obama can't afford to obstruct an attack by Israel is because doing so would be seen as favoring "the mullahs", whom the American people strongly dislike.

What's laughable about this is that, as its author knows very well, the risk to Obama comes from quite a different direction. At the end of the article he gives away the real point, which he had earlier tried to disguise:

Abroad, the American president will never need you more than during a brief six-week period in the fall.

In other words, in the period before the November election Obama cannot afford to oppose the wishes of the Israel lobby in the US, precisely because that lobby wields such awesome power over the American political process. Dislike of the mullahs is irrelevant. What's relevant is, see how we have Obama by the balls, and what better time there is to have him by the balls, than in the period leading up to the election.