The feud between the U.S. and Israel escalated another notch yesterday, with a report that the U.S. would consider abstaining from a United Nations Security Council vote critical of Israeli settlements in east Jerusalem.

As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S. can veto any issue that comes before the Council.  The U.S. has traditionally killed any attempt to use the UN as a platform for criticizing Israel.  If America were to abstain, the resolution condemning Israel for constructing settlements in east Jerusalem could pass.  This would be a significant break from past practice and clear evidence of a fissure between Obama and Netanyahu.

I don't actually expect the U.S. to abstain.  This story is based on an unsubstantiated report, not a declaration from the U.S. government, and could be nothing more than a rumor.  Furthermore, this would be a major deterioration in the U.S.-Israel relationship, and I don't believe President Obama is interested in taking that step.

Instead, I read this as a clear warning from Washington to Israelis.  It would appear that Obama is heeding the advice from the George Mitchell camp over the Dennis Ross camp, and taking a harder line.  The situation brings to mind the oft-quoted quip allegedly uttered by President Clinton after a meeting with Netanyahu in the 1990s, recounted by Andrew Exum earlier today

He thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires.

In short, this is a subtle message from Obama to Netanyahu - we hold the power here, and don't you forget that.

The UN announced today it would not participate in reconstruction efforts in Marjah and directly criticized NATO strategy. This is an unusually blunt assertion from the UN and a significant development by itself, but the New York Times buries the lede by putting this passage towards the bottom:

“Clear, hold and build, it’s short-sighted for two reasons,” the United Nations official said. “Territory changes hands in a conflict, and if the services are associated with a particular group, it will be destroyed.” That has happened often with projects like schools and clinics around the country. 

Not only is the UN withdrawing support for the Marjah Offensive, it is condemning the U.S. military and their embrace of COIN. Their basic rationale is that by making aid a clear military initiative the aid itself becomes a legitimate target for the insurgents. I’m not sure I buy that reasoning. The Taliban has long targeted foreign aid projects, such as schools and roads, so making it a military strategy doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

However, it is not their criticism of COIN doctrine that is the story here, it is their willingness to openly buck U.S. and NATO strategy.