Hardly a day passes now without new provocations by President Ahmadinejad of Iran. Whether he is threatening to wipe Israel off the map, denying the Holocaust, or defiantly resuming his nuclear program, it is obvious to all that Iran is now a menace not only to its neighbors in the Middle East but to the Western world as well. Yet European governments, led by the troika of France, Britain, and Germany, continue to insist that diplomacy can persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. With the exception of Tony Blair, no European leader has so far been prepared to contemplate the use of military means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Indeed, Foreign Secretary Straw insists that no such military option is even being contemplated. Mr. Straw told the BBC recently that he had never even discussed the use of force against Iran with the Bush administration. The manifest failure of European policy towards Iran does not appear to have shaken the European political class out of its complacency. Clearly the politicians believe that their voters are either ignorant about Iran or share their attitude of hoping, like Dickens’s Mr. Micawber, that “something will turn up.”

Well, it hasn’t yet hit the papers, but dramatic new evidence suggests that European public opinion is both much more alarmed by Iran’s nuclear threat and much more favorable to the idea of using military means to remove it. A poll conducted by the European Democratic Foundation in France, Germany, Britain, and Austria finds that large majorities in these countries believe that Iran’s nuclear program is intended to develop nuclear weapons. Majorities also say that they are “quite” or “very” worried about this.

When asked what should be done if Iran “continues with its nuclear research and is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon,” a surprisingly large proportion of Europeans favor “limited military action by NATO to destroy Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons.” In France, a majority of 74% agree with military action, in neutral Austria it is 51%, while in Britain and Germany pluralities of 49% and 46% respectively favor military action.

The same poll shows that about half of all those questioned were aware of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel and his Holocaust denial, and that an overwhelming majority strongly disagreed with him. This suggests that, despite their well known criticisms of Israel, Europeans still take Holocaust denial and the threat of a new Holocaust seriously. This factor partly explains their readiness not merely to acquiesce in military action by Israel or the United States, but also to participate in a NATO operation.

This poll has profound implications for the future of the Atlantic alliance. Sooner or later, the West will have to face up to military action against Iran; the question is not if, but when. If Europe opts out and even those European states that participated in Iraq are content to leave the perilous task of destroying Iran’s numerous nuclear facilities to the United States or Israel, then NATO might as well be laid to rest. But the poll demonstrates that ordinary Europeans are at least as worried about Iran as Americans, and the spectacle of Iraq, far from turning them into pacifists, has persuaded them that limited preventive war may be justifiable.

It is anybody’s guess how long it will take for European governments to catch up with their voters. The electoral influence of Muslim minorities is making itself felt across the continent. But fear of the Islamist mob may prove weaker than fear of what a nuclear Iran might do. It would make a great impact if Prime Minister Blair, who does not face re-election, could take the lead, as he did on Kosovo and Iraq. Alone in Europe, he reacted appropriately to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s threats. Americans are watching to see whether he will be the one to tell Europeans the truth about what has to be done.