It's a quick hit, but the case is made pretty clearly on this point.

I have no idea who this author is but his story is very one sided and in my view biased. There is not attempt to get quotes or information from each side. This is poor journalism.

This writer could benefit from a high-school debate class where his support points are actually supposed to prove his thesis. This disjointed collection not only doesn't prove any point, it's not even internally consistent--touching as it does on a number of issues that don't all relate.

The author seems to jump immediately to the conclusion that concessions from Israel are in no way linked to curtailing Iran's nuclear ambitions, and that support for that curtailment would remain at a high level among regional powers, no matter what path Israel took. This appears to be unsupported by the citations in the article, and an overbroad reading of the facts, not to mention demonstrative of a failure to understand that not all strands in the diplomatic web are either explicit or direct.

The message of this piece is a bit hard to discern. If the object is to criticise Obama for groveling before Israel, this is not clear. And if the writer thinks Obama actually has tried to engage with Iran, he is badly mistaken.