Lieberman’s Iranian War Fantasy
Senator Joseph Lieberman was once thought merely to be to the right of his erstwhile colleagues in the Democratic Party. These days, it sounds like the independent Senator from Connecticut is to the right of most Republicans, including the President himself—especially when it comes to foreign affairs.
Mr. Lieberman appeared on Face the Nation on Sunday, apparently with the primary purpose of rattling a saber in Iran’s direction.
“If there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law … we can’t just talk to them. If they don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force and, to me, that would include military action,” he told Bob Schieffer.
The concept of taking military action against a nation of Iran’s size and capabilities, while the U.S. remains bogged down next-door in Iraq, seems impractical, if not crazy.
Mr. Lieberman, however, has always been an optimist where military force is concerned—witness, for example, his consistently sunny assessments of the situation in Iraq.
The Senator asserted that “we have good evidence” that Iran has a camp at which people are trained to attack U.S. forces in Iraq. A single “strike” could sort the problem out, he suggested, adding that “I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air.”
Sunday’s performance was not the first time that Mr. Lieberman has made hawkish noises about Iran.
“While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging,” he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in December. “On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States.”
Mr. Lieberman also suggested that Al Qaeda and the Iranian government were pursuing a joint strategy in Iraq—an assertion that many observers viewed with considerable skepticism, given that Shiite Iran seems to have a greater vested interest in backing forces from its own strand of Islam than in supporting the Sunni militants of Al Qaeda.
And back in April 2006, Mr. Lieberman gave an interview to The Jerusalem Post in which he held out the possibility of U.S. strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Mr. Lieberman’s hard-line approach may be rooted in justifiable concerns about Iran’s intentions. But the solution he suggested on Sunday is a recipe for disaster. It incorporates the same ingredients of hubris, wishful thinking and over-simplification that have cost the U.S. so dear in Iraq. Next Page >
It is clear to me Senator Lieberman has an agenda. I am not sure it is all the White House's agenda. Could it possibly the the powerful Jewish Lobby in Washington?
The Mullahs must be concerned that not only are Americans crazy and unpredictable - they can play the game as well as the Supreme Leader. A senator from the minionship of democrat Harry "the War Is Lost" Reid (even better - a naughty jew) sends a very powerful message to the illegetimate, corrupt, murderous, intolerant regime in the Islamic Republic.
Attacking or Invading Iran? Maybe not. Maybe, America will build a coalition of sorts (remember all that hardware we just sold to the Saudi's in June?, or the Arab Leagues's condemnation of Hiz'B'Allah last summer? Or Jordan's Kings' worries over a Shi Ite Empire from Persia to the Med?) and launch a massive blitz on the top 20% of Iran's ruling clerics using cruise and conventional missiles, attack aircraft and old school special ops.
Such an attack is not as risky as a campaign to devastate all of Iran's nuke facilities. While Iran's rulers have some redundancy in their command and control posts, these are actually quite few in number as are the few calling the shots. Any wanna be 'supreme leader'
had best think fast before his own people stomp his guts out in the street.
Make no mistake, Iran is WEAK, the regime is hated (remember - nearly 80% of the population is under 35 years old) and with a figleaf coalition in place, the only flak America would catch would be from other weak despots who see their number rise up on the hit parade.
Militarily, Iran is still a basket case. Iran banged on the gates of Basra for six years and never made it in during the horrible Iran Iraq war.
Fantasy Mr Stanage? Taken all together - Iran's financiers are suddenly aloof, isolated from the world, failing to establish a super Iranian leaning shia majority in Iraq (despite spending nearly 2 billion dollars, the failures of the Mahdi Army, the Badr Corps and their new best pals Al Qaeda). Fantasy? More like brilliance.
How is this comment from Joe Lieberman hawkish: "“While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging,” he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in December. “On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States.”
That's known as calling a spade a spade, or not sticking your head in the sand.
It absolutely befuddles me as to how inept our leadership has become that Joe Lieberman, an isolated Independent, has been ostracized for stating the obvious.
http://rightisright.squarespace.com
What do you think the agenda be? Perhaps to ward off the extinction of his Israeli/Jewish brethren?
http://rightisright.squarespace.com
Joe Lieberman seems to have gone off the deep end.
Neil
FACE THE NATION: Face the Warmonger
The former democrat ... presently, Independent senator from Connecticut in losing his primary election, lost his position, lost his influence, causing him to lose face, may have lost his mind!
What was the objective? Could be nothing more than keeping his name out there, a la Bloomberg, his benefactor.
Perhaps, but...
Although many US citizens carry two passports few of us are conflicted when it comes to focusing upon the Constitution and what's (really) in the nations best interest.