The confrontation with Iran took quite a turn with the vote of the International Atomic Energy Commission to refer the Iran problem to the United Nations Security Council. The council may, or may not, impose sanctions to punish Iran (China still opposes sanctions, but has not made clear whether it would impose a veto). Sanctions could stall Iran’s quest for nuclear fire or not. Few have commented on the fact that the IAEA’s referral was marred by a successful attempt by Egypt to co-join the issue of Israel’s alleged nuclear weapons.

The Egyptian language was opposed by America, but supported by everyone else, including the European Union. The British crafted compromise language which satisfied Cairo (and the bloc of so-called non-aligned nations at the IAEA). The resolution adopted on February 4 by the IAEA Board of Governors argues that “a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and to realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery.”

Despite demurrals by the American delegate, this was understood to corral the “Israeli issue” along with the Iranian one. Israel diplomats tried to make the best of it through sophistry; Jerusalem’s ambassador at the world body, Daniel Gillerman, told an Israeli newspaper that this is much ado about nothing since “Israel also favors a Middle East clean of nuclear weapons, when no threat will exist.” For my part, I’m in favor of abolishing the NYPD when no crime exists.

But the attempts to belittle the linkage ignores the fact that the Egyptian view that America is guilty of a nuclear double standard – yes to Israel, no to Iran and North Korea – is shared by the IAEA chief ad Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad al-Baradai. According to a report on Al-jazeera from June 28, 2004, the IAEA chief said Israel should forgo its nuclear arsenal to correct “a widespread [regional] imbalance.”

According to Mr. al-Baradai, it was “not sustainable in any region or even globally to have some [people] rely on nuclear weapons and others being told they should not have nuclear weapons.”

It is against the backdrop of the negotiations over the Israel language at the IAEA meeting that I came to understand President Bush’s unprecedented declaration on Wednesday that “Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel’s defense if need be. “Asked if he meant America would rise to Israel’s defense militarily, Bush said: “You bet, we’ll defend Israel.”

Though this highly unusual language was reported and then forgotten, one would think it is quite serious – America upgrading its commitment to Israel to the equivalent of a NATO treaty partner – and all the more serious in the context of the grave Iranian threat to use nuclear weapons to “wipe Israel off the map.” Mark the timing. Just as America was preparing to acquiesce in an IAEA vote that hitches (however obliquely) the Israel nuclear question to the Iranian, Mr. Bush told Israel not to worry.

There are several things wrong with this turn of events. For one thing, Iran will now have a new fig leaf; like Saddam Hussein in 1990, promising to quit Kuwait if Israel retreats from the territories, Tehran can argue that it will not discuss its nuclear progress until and unless the world first deals with Israel, which already has one.

Secondly, the Bush pledge flies in the face of half a century of Israeli policy, which was never to ask anyone else to fight for Israel. Is it really in Israel’s interest to ask Americans, who may be war-weary for decades following Iraq, to extend a nuclear umbrella over the Jewish State? If, heaven forefend, Iran actually acquires a bomb and a delivery system, do we want to ask our fellow Americans to risk nuclear war over the fate of another country, however dear?

When did Israel ask America to defend it? Israel relies on its own nuclear umbrella and second strike capability. Nor is it logical for Iran to be presented as merely Israel’s problem. Nor should Israel be asked to place that amount of trust in the leader of a foreign country, however trustworthy. No offense intended, but by the time Iran gets a bomb, Mr. Bush may be back to running a baseball team.

The al-Baradai doctrine at the IAEA sees all nuclear weapons as morally equal. Speaking at the recent Davos conference, President Musharraf of Pakistan inadvertently contradicted the al-Baradai doctrine, arguing that Pakistan (and by extension Israel) was justified in building nuclear arsenals because “its security is threatened.” But as for Iran, “I don’t think their security is threatened. Therefore, I presume they need not go nuclear.”

But there is another way of looking at this: Nuclear weapons in American or Israeli hands are neither the moral or political equivalent of nuclear weapons in the hands of the current Iranian regime.

Mr. Twersky is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.