I don't have much to say about the Guardian's report that Obama plans to talk to Hamas beyond what I already scribbled out in the Hot Air comments section: yes Obama will end up engaging Hamas in some form unless Israel physically dismantles them; no the Guardian doesn't have any new information about this; yes the Guardian made up their "anonymous sources" just like they make up their "anonymous sources" for their routine "neocons are about to attack Iran" stories. It's like when DEBKA cites "security sources" in a story about how Palestinian forces are using US security assistance for terrorism. Stunningly insightful. And if all that wasn't already obvious, here's uber-insider Steve Rosen to tell you that the Guardian story is bogus.

None of this is to suggest that Obama isn't going to detonate the US-Israel relationship. Wednesday's announcement that John Brennan will get a senior NSC post confirms that Obama will take a soft line on Iran. That puts him on a collisions course with Israel that anti-Israel foreign policy experts are already preparing to escalate into a full-blown diplomatic meltdown. Meanwhile his neutral "concern" about Gaza - coupled with his ominous warning that "on January 20, you'll hear [from him] directly" as he "immediately" launches his Middle East engagement program - reveals what was underneath his earlier ominous silence.

And even if there weren't fundamental sources of tension: the latest polls show that Israelis are poised to elect a Likud-led government while the President-Elect is someone who once smeared "pro-Likud approaches" to Middle East policymaking. The inevitable friction has already become a commonplace in Israeli political discourse. So yeah, I think there may be some diplomatic and interpersonal problems.

But nonetheless, on this particular point, the Guardian is basically making shit up.

References and previously after the jump...