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.”