Israel is very worried about the danger posed by Iran. America is also worried. So are the Jews, and so is much of the rest of the world. The threatening words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the progress being made in the Iranian nuclear program should clearly make us all lose some sleep. But the question is: How should the United States, or Israel, or any of us respond? The answer is not so clear.

On the June 10 broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) advocated attacking (but not necessarily invading) Iran in response to the apparent Iranian military activity against U.S. forces in Iraq where, he said, "by some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers."

"[I]f there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them," Lieberman said.

Some see Lieberman's hard line as rash, hasty, and unwise. Earlier this month, ARZA: The Association of Reform Zionists of America convened a one-day conference in Washington to provide Reform Jewish leaders an opportunity to learn about the Iranian threat, especially as it applies to Israel. Every speaker emphasized the need to exhaust all other methods of persuasion, including face-to-face diplomatic talks and a variety of internationally imposed economic sanctions, before considering the use of force against Iran.

These experts included Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ); and Jeremy Issacharoff, the deputy chief of mission at the Israeli embassy and the former deputy director-general for strategic affairs at Israel's Foreign Ministry.

These are not knee-jerk peaceniks who shy away from the use of military force in all circumstances. But they all agreed that, in the case of Iran, while the military option should be left on the table, it should be considered only as a last resort. Preventive military action, in Eisenstadt's words, "entails the acceptance of significant near-term risk for an uncertain outcome whose benefits may well be short-lived." So whereas we may eventually have no choice but to respond militarily, such a move is likely to solve little and cause a host of new problems.

A further question regarding our view of the Iranian threat is: Exactly how worried should we be? Some months ago, a mailing was widely distributed by The Israel Project, an organization with offices in Washington and Jerusalem that, according to its Web site, is "devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom, and peace." On the front of the envelope was a photograph of Ahmadinejad with what appeared to be a nuclear explosion behind him. (This was obviously a digitally "manufactured" photograph, since Iran has never exploded a nuclear weapon.) Right next to the picture, on the front of the envelope, were the ominous words, "It's not a question of if, but when…"

The message seemed clear: The Iranian regime will build a nuclear weapon and it will detonate it. Such a message has only one goal, namely, to create and intensify fear. Fear is a dangerous emotion. It makes us react without thinking, without considering what is truly a wise course of action or what might be the unintended consequences of our behavior.

We should be very concerned about Iran's promise to develop nuclear weapons, and its president's venomous threat to wipe Israel off the map. We should not dismiss these as the irrational rantings of a psychopath. We should take the danger very seriously. But responses fueled by fear instead of thought will not be in the best interests of the United States, of Israel, or of the world.

Our children are often counseled in nursery school to "use their words" to settle disputes. It seems that we live in a time when many leaders have forgotten this simple advice. In the weeks and months to come, the Jewish community is well advised to start learning about Iran, and paying attention to its place in the dangerous neighborhood of the Middle East. We should carefully evaluate the potential efficacy of every means of persuading the Iranian regime to back down from its hateful rhetoric and threats. Those means may include various forms of diplomatic discussion, international economic sanctions, divestment, embargoes, and more. They may also include a variety of military options.

But let us counsel our leaders not to rush to the easy conclusion that force is the best persuader. Recent history has shown that military responses rarely solve complex international problems. We cannot afford to be guided by fear and anger. The stakes are just too high.