Disagree with Joe Lieberman’s suggestion of military action versus Iran, if you want. Argue that America doesn’t have the military capacity to start another front right now. But let’s keep it in perspective shall we. Lieberman’s reacting to an Iran that has embarked on military adventurism across the Middle East.
I write in The New York Sun: “Iran’s role in training fighters in Iraq, Iran’s aiding Hezbollah, which is destabilizing Lebanon and threatening Israel, Hamas battling Fatah and threatening Israeli areas bordering Gaza. To these can be added recent reports that NATO forces have detected Iranians bringing explosive materials into Afghanistan. All of these actions are not equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor yet, perhaps, but, taken together, they suggest a regional effort by Iran to destabilize the Middle East.”
Many commentators — including one in an e-mail comment read last night on CNN — have suggested Lieberman is merely carrying water for Israel. Drudge even ran a photo of Lieberman with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to illustrate the Iran story. We’re back to the “double loyalty” canard. I suppose one might argue that a nuclear Iran dominant from Gaza to Afghanistan only affects Israel — not America. Perhaps this is the foreign policy reordering that such bright lights as Steve Walt are advocating for — one that has us behaving far more like France or Germany than America. That would mean we’d also have to sell out oil-producing Sunni countries such as Dubai and Kuwait, who depend on us to keep Iran away from them.
Lieberman’s raising a difficult option to a tough problem. I thought that was what members of the U.S. Senate were supposed to do.