David Harsanyi: "The Obama administration values a future relationship with Iran more than it values the historic relationship it has with Israel. ... First, Americans were supposed to be outraged because Netanyahu engaged in a breach of protocol. Then we were supposed to be outraged because the speech would be given too close to the upcoming Israeli elections. ... But if the Israeli elections ... are so problematic, then the controversy should be centered on the behavior of the prime minister, not the substance of his argument. That's not the case, is it? ... [T]he problem isn't protocol, Israeli elections, patriotism or partisanship. It's the fact that Netanyahu is going to make a powerful argument against enabling Iran to become a nuclear power. Many Americans will hear it – or of it. Many Americans will agree. ... Critics of Netanyahu act as if opposing Obama's Iranian deal is tantamount to declaring war on Iran. In the long run, allowing Iran to become nuclear might well mean war. ... Surely, hearing out the case of an ally that is persistently threatened by Holocaust-denying Iranian officials doesn't need to come with this much angst from Democrats. But if it does, it's worth asking why."