On Monday, Donald Trump met with the editorial board of the Washington Post to discuss his foreign policy views as well as to reveal the first partial list of his advisers. As our Noah Rothman wrote earlier, what he said was a remarkable statement that illustrated the candidate’s utter lack of respect for history and the entire point of American foreign policy since World War II. It was a rambling, incoherent cri de coeur of an isolationist and protectionist who had little understanding of the ramifications of an American withdrawal from the world stage. It was a signal to America’s allies that if Trump was elected president they were more or less on their own. In a Trump administration, NATO and other alliances that have kept the peace and enabled stability in both hemispheres will be up for grabs. Trump’s America will look inward and build walls, that are both physical and trade barriers, to keep the rest of the world out and its resources at home.

But a few hours later, a different Donald Trump took the stage at the annual AIPAC conference. Reading from the teleprompter for perhaps the first time since he was a reality television star, Trump appeared to make few deviations from the script he was handed and what came out of his mouth might have been the most coherent things he has said since the start his presidential campaign.

Trump hit all the major themes that the pro-Israel community wanted to hear. He denounced the Iran nuclear deal in a detailed and cogent manner, identified the Iranian regime as a major terror sponsor, and said he would renounce the agreement when he was elected. He properly put the blame for the lack of peace in the Middle East on the Palestinians. In doing so, he not only accurately recited the history of Palestinian rejection of Israeli peace offers but also discussed the way the political culture of the Palestinians treats terrorists that slaughter Jews as heroes. This contradicted his repeated vows at debates and in interviews in which he promised to be neutral between Israel and the Palestinians. He vowed to stop the United Nations from imposing a bad deal on Israel that would reward the Palestinians for terrorism. If that wasn’t enough, he pulled an old chestnut out of the pro-Israel politicians bag of tricks and vowed to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem (a promise also made by Ted Cruz), something that many presidents have promised but have never done because of threats from the Arab world.

Those on the left that are opposed to Israel will denounce Trump’s remarks for his support of Israel, the same way they will those of Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton, for that matter. But Trump’s speech was sensible and showed a command of the facts that his vague boasts about restoring greatness that we’ve heard from him have lacked. If he carried out the policies he spoke of on Monday night, a President Trump would be a strong ally of Israel and a responsible player in the Middle East. In fact, the strength of the speech made a lot of people forget about some of the protests from those that were appalled by his dog whistle appeals to race, bias, and violence.

In theory, that should allay a lot of the concerns about Trump in both the pro-Israel community, as well as among those that have pointed out his painful ignorance about key strategic issues like the nuclear triad or the need for the U.S. to stand with its allies rather than to retreat into a fortress America. But the problem here isn’t with what he said but the fact that this was his first scripted speech as a candidate in a campaign in which he has risen to the top of the polls by being an unscripted, loose canon. The stark contrast between the unscripted Trump who would abandon Ukraine to Vladimir Putin and trash NATO and the smart scripted Trump that spoke about Israel is too great to be ignored.

Of course, all politicians, even great statesmen, rely on speechwriters and are ultimately responsible for everything that comes out of their mouths. But good leaders understand what they are saying and have writers that provide them with speeches that faithfully reflect their views. Their ad-libbed remarks may not be as polished as their composed speeches but they aren’t generally that different in terms of substance. However, the day and night contrast between scripted and unscripted Trump raises serious questions as to what it is that he actually thinks and how he would govern in a way that another candidate’s remarks would not.

Let’s specify that even Trump’s AIPAC script contained a couple of whoppers. His assertion that serving as the honorary grand marshal of New York’s annual “Salute to Israel Day” parade in 2004 was a hazardous job entailing risk is the sort of gobsmackingly absurd material that we have come to expect from Trump and will generate comparisons to Hillary Clinton’s fibs about coming under non-existent sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. Similarly foolish was his assertion that he knew more about the Iran nuclear deal than all 18,000 AIPAC activists in attendance at his speech — knowledge that he hasn’t exhibited during previous ad-libbed speeches.

But even so, he deserves credit for hiring some as yet unknown smart people to write him a good speech. And perhaps he believes everything said in it. At least we should hope so. Maybe the contrast between his support for Israel and his abandonment of NATO and America’s Asian allies just means that Israel is the sole exception to his isolationist credo. If so, that is hardly an argument for his foreign policy expertise. Especially when you contrast his usual poor command of the issues with the more natural grasp of these topics demonstrated by John Kasich and Ted Cruz, who both delivered impressive speeches at AIPAC.

We’re likely to learn a lot more about Trump and what he thinks in both scripted and unscripted moments in the coming months if he stays on track to be the Republican presidential nominee. But far from answering all the questions about him, his AIPAC speech raises some new ones. The address was so different in content and tone from everything else Trump has said since last spring that it can’t be taken at face value. Until we have a better idea about which Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office is he is elected — the unscripted wildcard or the scripted politician that sounded as if he knew what he was talking about — Americans will be right to worry about trusting him with the role of commander-in-chief.