The lead headline on the editorial page in the Sept. 24 edition of the New York Times reads: "Israel and America After the Deal."

It's a piece that tells the Obama administration how to proceed with Israel after Prime Minister Netanyahu failed in his campaign against the Iran nuclear agreement – or, as the editorial puts it, "what America must do to reassure Israel and its American supporters that the agreement will not harm Israel's security."

Those words appear in the first paragraph of the editorial and might suggest to Times readers that the paper has Israel's security at heart.  But a further reading of the editorial makes it clear that the Times doesn't really believe this.  Or could be enlisted to promote it.

The pejorative stuff against Israel starts in the second half of the editorial.  To wit: "Since 2009, the United States has provided Israel with more than $20 billion in military aid, as well as more than $3 billion for missile defense systems and $1.9 billion in precision-guided  munitions."  That doesn't sound like a pitch for more or continued military aid to Israel.  Just the opposite.

To further suggest that Israel can do without U.S. aid, the editorial – while noting that President Obama is prepared to provide greater security support to Israel – emphasizes that "Israel, the only country in the region with nuclear weapons, will always have military superiority over its neighbors."

Again, a pitch to question more U.S. aid – or the need for it.

The Times can read the tea leaves on Capitol Hill and is resigned to settle for some U.S. assistance – but the less the better.  Or as the editorial puts it: "[i]t is probably inevitable that American aid to Israel, already a top recipient, will be increased, but Congress knows those increases come at a time of strict limits on federal spending and will undoubtedly require cuts in other programs."

Another signal to Congress to keep U.S. aid to Israel to a minimum. 

But the heavy stuff is still to come.

The editorial bemoans the fact that "the focus on American obligations often ignores" Israel's responsibility to contribute to regional stability – "Israel undermines stability by failing to negotiate peace with the Palestinians."  This attack on Israel is 180 degrees from reality.  It is Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians who refuse to go to the negotiating table.  Not Netanyahu, who has offered immediate, unconditional talks.

The final blow comes in the final paragraph: "In the end, what's most important for Israel's security is the relationship with the United States.  Those ties were put at risk by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and congressional Republicans, who polarized the debate over the Iran deal. A crucial sense of trust needs to be rebuilt. It is unclear that this can happen soon, no matter how many promises of aid and cooperation America makes to Israel."

In other words, Israel is a losing proposition for Obama, according to the editorial page of the New York Times.

Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers.