You won't believe this: U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are battling on two fronts: against their closest ally Israel and their own Democrats in the Senate.

They want a nuclear deal with Iran, and a plan for implementing the interim agreement that has just been finalized. That is the most sensible thing to do. But both Israel and many senate Democrats are dead set against it.

Kerry has been shuttling between Jerusalem and Ramallah, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas, seeking a peace deal by the end of April that would create a Palestinian state and end decades of conflict.

But that's not what the Israeli leadership wants. It wants Kerry just to leave Israel alone, so it can keep nibbling away at Palestinian territory and hold the Palestinians down. All Kerry got was ridicule and attacks.

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said: "The only thing that can 'save us' is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace." "The American security plan presented to us is not worth the paper it's written on," Ya'alon said, "American Secretary of State John Kerry, who turned up here determined and acting out of misplaced obsession and messianic fervor, cannot teach me anything about the conflict with the Palestinians."

The U.S. State Department called the comments "inappropriate" and "offensive."

That is not all, Israeli Housing Minister Uri Ariel, a member of the conservative-nationalist Jewish Home party, openly contradicted the U.S. State Department about new Israeli settlements, asserting, "Even if the United States does not approve of the construction, it will continue. The United States is our great ally, but they also sometimes take action we do not approve of." Just last week, Israel unveiled plans to build another 1,800 new settler homes, hot on the heels of Kerry's latest visit.

No less serious is the war bill introduced in the U.S. Senate by Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) called the Iran Nuclear Weapon Free Act of 2013, which is clearly designed to sabotage the nuclear deal with Iran, by threatening new sanctions and war. A section of it reads:

…if the government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self- defense against Iran's nuclear program, the United States government should stand

with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the

constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force,

diplomatic, military, and economic support to the government of Israel in its

defense of its territory, people, and existence…."

As the bill also demands that Iran give up all enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and technologies, Professor Gary Sick of Columbia University, in a open letter to Chuck Schumer, says, "The bottom line of this bill as written would remove any negotiating authority from the U.S. government by specifying in advance the terms of an impossible settlement. At the same time, the bill outsources any decision about resort to military action to the government of Israel, by committing the United States in advance to support any military action by Israel."

Why would the world's sole super power yield its foreign policy decision to its tiny client? The two main co-sponsors of the legislation are two of the largest recipients of campaign funding from the Israeli lobby. Kirk has been the biggest recipient of pro-Israel PAC money in Congress since 2012. Menendez received more than $340,000 from pro-Israel PACs, beating all other Senate candidates.

As for Schumer, the third ranking Democrat in the Senate, who once wanted to slap heavy duties on imports from China. The guy hates China and loves Israel more than his own country. He ranked fifth in his 2010 race at $260,000, far behind Kirk, the year's winner at $640,000. The bill in fact is an AIPAC bill. AIPAC bought them all.

The legislation has so many co-sponsors that they may even override Obama's veto if it comes to that.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://china.org.cn/opinion/zhaojinglun.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.