If Tehran is dissecting this week's meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- and no doubt it is -- the Iranians should be worried. Netanyahu entered the meeting opposed to talks with Iran; Obama favors them. But by the end of their meeting, which ran an hour over schedule, Obama had moved closer to his counterpart's position. He called for a "clear timetable" to be established for Iran to halt its nuclear program. "We are not going to have talks forever," Obama said, after meeting Netanyahu. "[B]y the end of the year I think we should have some sense as to whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits."

The U.S. president's statements, which appear to be a compromise between the Israeli position (aggression) and the American one (diplomacy) actually represent a major victory for Netanyahu: The Israelis are fine with talks in the short term, because they are convinced -- perhaps correctly -- that talks will fail and that their failure can be used to justify more aggressive measures down the road.

Listening to Israelis during a visit to the country a few weeks ago was a wake-up call for me. Israeli fear of Iran is pervasive. And officials in the corridors of power are not the only ones who are worried; ordinary men and women are fearful too, like the security guard at my hotel who spoke of wanting to finish his studies so he can work for the Mossad and help contain Iranian aggression. Israelis strongly believe that Iran will develop a nuclear bomb within the next three years if nothing is done. Even if Iran uses its nuclear technology only as a deterrent, they argue, it is very likely that Iran will pass on its nuclear know-how to Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are enemies of Israel within firing range. To Tel Aviv, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable under any circumstance.

Experts in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, moreover, express grave concerns about Obama's desire to hold comprehensive bilateral talks with Iran -- the first such engagement since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. And they might be right that talking to Iran will prove useless, as the last 30 years of history would suggest. Nearly every U.S. administration since Ronald Reagan has engaged Iran either secretively or publicly. Beginning in 2001, U.S. diplomats sought Iranian cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both sides claim the other failed to do its part, and talks ended with limited effect. European Union and United Nations discussions with Iran on the nuclear issue frustrated diplomats, with no clear result. Iran has rejected U.N. Security Council demands that it halt its production of enriched uranium and failed to answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency about its nuclear program. In essence, negotiations have yielded nothing. No wonder Iran consistently expresses a willingness to take part in them.

The realists in Israel favor talks for a limited time -- with a deadline of six months -- in order to justify a military attack. They concede that a military attack probably wouldn't destroy Iran's nuclear program, because the facilities are located underground. But an attack could delay Iran's development of a nuclear bomb and allow Israel to advance its own air missile defense system in the meantime. For Israelis, the talks' only use would be in demonstrating Iran's intransigence -- proving once and for all that Iran has no intention of suspending nuclear enrichment; that it will not end its financial support for Hezbollah and Hamas; and that it believes the United States and Israel should be contained.

Widely reported differences of opinion aside, then, Obama and Netanyahu's talks are good news for Israel. A time limit moves the Israeli military closer to taking action against Iran. And if Iran's behavior is consistent with the past, then we may indeed be headed for a crisis.