As Jonathan pointed out, we’ve gotten sidetracked on an unhelpful guessing game about Israel’s capability and will to carry out an attack on Iran if the U.S. fails to do so. It’s important, I think, to put this in the context of a larger, noxious trend among the Israel-bashers to set America’s interests as distinct from and in conflict with those of the Jewish state.

We have seen this in the assertion that failure to make progress on the peace process (i.e., to force Israel to cough up more concessions) endangers American lives in Afghanistan and elsewhere. We have seen this in the argument that America went to war in Iraq at Israel’s behest. (Don’t bother with facts; this is the left’s fantasy of an America imperiled by the Jewish state.) So naturally, the discussion of what to do about Iran — at least we’ve all agreed sanctions are meaningless — involves an effort to distance the U.S. from Israel and to focus on Israel’s military and political calculus, as if our interests were distinct. On that I’ll be brief: Israel will act if we don’t, for if it does not, the entire Zionist undertaking — a nation of refuge for world Jewry — dissolves.

But the emphasis on the existential threat to Israel ignores a more basic issue for Americans to ponder: a nuclear-armed Iran represents a dagger at the heart of America and an existential threat to our status as a superpower and guarantor of the West’s security. As to the former, Iran is pressing ahead with its long-range ballistic missile program. First the Middle East and Eastern Europe, then all of Europe and, within a matter of years, the U.S. will be within range of Iranian missiles. If those are nuclear and not conventional, what then? We’re not talking about whether Iran is going to be “merely” a destabilizing factor in the Middle East or whether it will set off an arms race with its neighbors or imperil Israel’s existence. We’re talking about whether America will then be at risk (and lacking sufficient missile-defense capabilities if we continue to hack away at our defense budget). The argument about whether mutual assured destruction can really work against Islamic fundamentalists who have an apocalyptic vision becomes not about Israel’s ability to deter an attack but about ours. Those who oppose American military action have an obligation to explain why America should place itself in that predicament.

And then there is the broader issue of America’s standing as the sole superpower and the defender of the Free World. Should the “unacceptable” become reality, the notion that America stands between free peoples and despots and provides an umbrella of security for itself and its allies will vanish, just as surely as will the Zionist ideal. Two administrations have declared the policy of the U.S. to be that Iran must not join the nuclear club. Obama himself has set nonproliferation as a top priority. So if Iran pushes forth, despite these commitments and attains what the U.S. has pronounced “unacceptable,” what ally henceforth would rely on us? What use would our security guarantees be? What meaning would any alliance with the U.S. have?

It is for these reasons, as well as the practical military reasons Jonathan outlined, that the U.S. must act militarily to defang the mullahs. It is not for Israel but for ourselves and the preservation of America’s standing in the world that we must act. The considerable doubt that Obama will do so should disturb every elected leader and the public at large. It is time to have a robust discussion, not about the existential threat to Israel — for that is obvious and has been amply discussed — but about the threat to America. Put in these terms, we should all be asking a single question: will Obama commit the U.S. to use military force to prevent a fundamental threat to the safety and security of the U.S. and the Free World?