The study highlights Syria and Iran as Israel's main opponents in the Middle East, shedding light on persistent attempts to get Washington to put pressure on or attack both.

"Israeli leaders did not push the Bush administration to put its crosshairs on Syria before March 2003, because they were two busy pushing for war against Iraq."

The study included quotes by Israeli leaders during that period, making it clear the Jewish state wanted pressures of all kinds, short of military attack, to be exercised by Washington on the Syrian regime.

"Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely adversary to acquire nuclear weapons."

According to the study, former Israeli Premiere Ariel Sharon, now in coma, first began pressing Washington publicly to attack Iran militarily in November 2002, when he called the Islamic Republic the "center of world terror" during a high profile interview with The Times.

It is remarkable, in this regard, that Tehran and its alleged nuclear weapons' program seemed the main theme during AIPAC's latest conference, during which the issue of going after Iran gained the biggest momentum ever.

During December 2005, AIPAC and other pro-Israel players launched a seemingly coordinated attack on the Bush administration, describing Bush's position on Iran as "disturbing" and "dangerous". The reason then was the Bush administration's acceptance of a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision. AIPAC then said it was "downright pissed."

Since then, the nuclear standoff with Iran was referred to the UN Security Council and in April, press reports started talking about a limited US nuclear attack against Iran's nuclear installations being on the making.

According to the study, the explanation (behind all matchless support to Israel, no matter what) lies in the massive power of the Israel Lobby.

The Lobby, the paper says, is the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.

Organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, in addition to Christian Zionist organizations make the prominent stars of the Lobby.

In the first week of March, 2006, AIPAC held its largest-ever annual Policy Conference in Washington D.C., attracting more than 5,000 pro-Israel activists from the United States and several foreign countries, according to AIPAC's website.

Almost two thirds of the US Congress and Senate members, in addition to top US officials and policymakers also attended the gathering and made speeches dedicated to the welfare and undisputed support of Israel.

Addressing the conference, new Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, vowed never to allow anti-Israel legislation be discussed.

"As the new House majority leader, I can assure you that under my leadership, legislation that is in any way perceived as anti-Israel will not be considered in the House of Representatives," Boehner vowed.

On methods employed by the Lobby to guarantee the continuous flow of support to Israel, the study says the Lobby relies on two "broad strategies".

"First, it wields significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the Executive branch to support Israel down the line… Second, the Lobby strives to ensure that public discourse about Israel portrays it in a positive light, by repeating myths about Israel and its founding and by publicizing Israel's side in the policy debates of the day."

Typically, the study was widely shunned by US mainstream media outlets and even less influential media that handled it gave wide ground to critical voices of the study and its authors.

A shorter version of the study was first published March 10, by the London Review of Books.

"The Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media in good part because most American commentators are pro-Israel… This pro-Israel bias is reflected in the editorials of major newspapers," the authors note.

The study names newspapers like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Washington Times and magazines like Commentary, the New Republic and Weekly Standard as biased to Israel or even "zealously defending Israel at every turn."

"Never before have the mainstream US media performed so atrociously, if not discouragingly, as they did this month when the editors ignored a damning report by two prominent university professors who are on the faculties of some of the country's most respectable institutions, Harvard University and the University of Chicago," wrote George S. Hishmeh in the Jordan Times on April 1.

In the study, the two professors, who both had to resign late March from their academic positions in both universities, also took aim at prominent think tanks in the United States, dubbing them, "Think tanks that think one way!"

Naming but a few, the paper says, "Over the 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)."

The study concludes with attempts to answer the question: "Can the Lobby's power be curtailed?"

Taking into consideration some factors like the "Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America's image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US government secrets to Israel", the authors believe "there are ample grounds for US leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby…"

The study, however, says "that is not going to happen anytime soon", citing the matchless influence AIPAC and its allies enjoy over the makings and makers of US foreign policy at present.

"But there is a ray of hope. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide".

The study says “a candid discussion of the lobby's influence and a more open debate about US interests in this vital region (Middle East)" is what is really needed.

"Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the United States to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel's long-term interests as well."

Understandably, most of the American Jewish press is up in arms against the damning study which, despite relying on already existing material, is still considered the strongest of its kind in the field of academic studies.