For politicians, the honeymoon period is short, especially in this age of intense media scrutiny. It is therefore no surprise that President Barack Obama’s standing in opinion polls has dropped with liberals disenchanted by his compromises and Republicans emboldened by his troubles.

Two issues, one domestic and the other external, have galvanised a broad coalition against him, creating doubts about his ability to overcome well-organised lobbies. Internally, Obama’s revamp of the health system was to be the centrepiece of his domestic agenda; externally, he vowed to promote a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In fact, the US may be the only developed country that does not have a national health policy, something the Europeans take for granted. Obama announced early that he would take on this challenge, but he may not have foreseen the reaction of the powerful coalition of the health insurance industry, the American Medical Association and the Republicans waiting for an opportune moment to embarrass the president. He may now have no other option but to make compromises that could create a bigger mess.

However, it is Obama’s desire to resolve the Middle East conflict that has galvanised the opposition. While many Americans recognise that without a resolution of the Palestinian issue there can be no peace in the region, few are aware of the history of the conflict or accept the rationale of the Palestinian case. That Obama even chose to take on this issue so early and with so much resolve is a testimony to both his courage and conviction that without its early resolution, the Muslim world would continue to harbour serious misgivings about the US.

It may also have been somewhat unfortunate that Obama’s initiative coincided with the return to power in Israel of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s extreme rightwing government. But this did not discourage Obama from identifying the issue of growing Israeli settlements on occupied territory as at the heart of the present impasse.

Obama has, therefore, been pressing the Israelis to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements. This was the main issue during Netanyahu’s visit to Washington late last month, but the Israeli leader remained obdurate.

During Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s just concluded visit to Washington, Obama was able to claim that he was encouraged by reports that Israel had stopped granting permission for new settlements in the West Bank (even though the building process is continuing), emphasising that the Palestinians and Arab states too needed to promote the peace process. Netanyahu, however, remains as inflexible as ever, questioning even the wisdom of an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, warning that ‘we will never make the same mistake again’.

It will therefore be an increasingly difficult task for Obama to maintain pressure on Israel, where only six per cent view him as pro-Israeli, while 50 per cent believe he is anti-Israel and 36 per cent see him as neutral.

Media comments have intensified the fear among many Israelis that Obama may distance himself from them to improve relations with the Arab states. This is not surprising given that 69 per cent of Israelis are against freezing the growth of major settlement blocks, with only 27 per cent in favour and four per cent expressing no opinion.

But Obama is not one to be deterred by these impediments. Instead, he took the unprecedented step of dispatching virtually his entire national security team consisting of Defence Secretary Gates, National Security Advisor Jones, Special Envoy Mitchell and White House Senior Adviser Dennis Ross to Israel as a symbol of his resolve to maintain course. The effort was clearly directed at both cajoling and comforting the Jewish state, assuring it that by promoting a settlement with the Arabs, Obama was ensuring Israel’s security.

Obama appreciates the enormity of the challenge he faces, which is why he is keen to avoid a frontal collision with the Israeli government, opting instead to exert ‘soft’ pressure. But the Israeli leader is not only tough but wily, preferring to wriggle out of the impasse by claiming that he must be allowed to complete the projects that have already been started than take on the American president directly.

At the same time, the Israeli rightwing parties and their allies in the US are gearing up for battle. The ‘lobby’, as it is called, has already given the wake-up call. The dress rehearsal for this operation was its intense lobbying against the nomination of Chas Freeman for a senior intelligence position which was successful thanks to the combination of public character assassination and the subtle blackmail of US legislators.

The ‘lobby’ has pointed out that while 80 per cent of American Jews had voted for Obama, there was a distinct cooling off. Netanyahu has also expressed the fear that the Obama administration is focusing unnecessarily on his policies, rather than on Iran, which he claims, is deeply worrying the region because of its nuclear weapon programme.

Many Israelis are also uncomfortable with the administration’s policy of ‘outreach and engagement’, especially with states like Syria, North Korea and Iran. There is also the fear that engaging with the Muslim world — an avowed aim of the president — will inevitably result in a distancing from Israel, especially if Obama wants to appear more even-handed to Arab states.

In particular, any American effort to engage with Iran is deeply upsetting to the Israelis who see Iran as a mortal threat. Most Israelis believe the military option must always remain on the table, while Secretary Clinton has stated publicly her determination to ‘remain ready to engage with Iran’.

To the Israelis, this approach sounds not only naïve but even dangerous. Israel fears that at the end of the day, its options will narrow down to two: live with an Iranian bomb or strike Iran to destroy or delay its nuclear programme. And now, with public support for the Afghan war eroding as well, Obama’s summer holidays are unlikely to give him much time to relax and recoup.