It’s not clear what to make of Vice President Dick Cheney’s blunt words on Iran during his speech this week to the American Israel-Public Affairs Committee. Addressing the 6,000 delegates to AIPAC’s annual policy conference, Cheney declared, “My friends, it is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace that is posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave Israel’s best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened.”

That sentence needs unpacking. What exactly does he mean by “action”? In the context of a speech on our military action in Iraq, the vice president sounds as if he is also referring to military “action” in Iran. This is troubling, in that it suggests that the pro-Israel community is “demanding” such action. In fact, much of organized Jewry, including the widely representative Jewish Council on Public Affairs, is adamant that diplomacy be pursued aggressively to keep nukes out of Iran, and that military action remain only an option.

Cheney’s statement also contradicts those who support a phased withdrawal from Iraq precisely because our continued engagement there seems to be dangerously weakening the United States, both militarily and in its standing in the region and around the world. Agree with that stance or not, you can’t say it is “inconsistent” to wonder if ending the quagmire in Iraq might leave America better equipped to face a far more existential threat such as a nuclear-armed Iran.

It is heartening to know that the Administration shares American Jewry’s deep, deep concern about Iran and its intentions. But the White House should not presume America’s Jews are of one mind on how to address the issue, nor suggest they are ungrateful if they do not support the war in Iraq.