June 18, 2007
Lieberman Takes Heat For Iran Warnings
National Review Online: Senator's Warning That Military Action Might Be Needed Triggers Left-Wing Attacks
-
Play CBS Video Video Lieberman Warns Iran Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., says the U.S. should bomb Iran if it doesn't stop helping anti-U.S. forces in Iraq.
-
Sen. Joseph Lieberman has come under fire for suggesting that military action might be needed against Iran. (CBS)
-
Timeline The U.S. And Iran Key events in once friendly, now contentious relationship between Washington and Tehran.
-
Timeline Iran Nuclear Chronology Events in development of Iran's nuclear program since it first came to light.
When one country trains a force to infiltrate and destabilize its neighbor, it has committed an act of war. And by now, it is hardly a secret that Iran has been funding, arming and training radical factions of the Mahdi army. Still, most American politicians have been reluctant to call Iran's behavior exactly what it is: an act of war against Iraq — and against the United States.
During a "Face the Nation" appearance a week ago, Sen. Joseph Lieberman said: "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq." Lieberman had recently returned from a visit to Iraq, where he discussed Iran's role there with Gen. David Petraeus.
Democrats and their "netroots" predictably worked themselves into a frenzy over Lieberman's comments. The antiwar group Code Pink protested outside Lieberman's office. Harry Reid said, patronizingly, "I know Joe means well," during a teleconference with left-wing bloggers. Reid argued that the way to handle Iran is diplomacy: a meeting among regional heads of state and President Bush.
"Senator Lieberman's saber-rattling does nothing to help dissuade Iran from aiding Shia militias in Iraq," averred Wesley Clark on The Huffington Post. Well, at least he acknowledges Iranian complicity in the killing of Americans and American allies in Iraq. He nonetheless seems more exercised by Lieberman than by the Iranians. Clark concluded: "Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point." Clark has now begun an online-petition campaign to tout the message, "War is not the Answer — Diplomacy is."
We have already talked directly to the Iranians about their stoking of mayhem in Iraq, and it has availed us nothing. We have subcontracted out to the Europeans talking to them about ending their nuclear program, which has also brought nothing. Too many contemporary fans of "diplomacy" are invoking it with no appreciation for its limits — and no fallback plan when it fails.
Our politics is at an extraordinary pass when a senator who suggests we should be prepared to take military action to protect American troops from hostilities undertaken by a sworn enemy of the United States is roundly denounced. No Republicans have spoken out in Lieberman's defense. Nearly everyone wants to take a "see no evil" posture toward Iran's involvement in Iraq, even though Gen. Petraeus has spoken forthrightly about its murderous handiwork. Lieberman's offense was merely to speak the truth.
In May, Petraeus released evidence showing that Iran had provided the Qazali network, a radical breakaway of the Mahdi army, "with substantial funding, training on Iranian soil, advanced explosive munitions and technologies." Several of these fighters were captured, together with records of an attack they had led on U.S. forces in Karbala that killed five American soldiers. The records were apparently being maintained so the Qazali network could show the fruits of its labors to their benefactors in Iran, particularly the Qods force of the Iranian Republican Guards.
It is sometimes argued that the Iranians responsible for arming our adversaries in Iraq are "rogue elements" of the Revolutionary Guard. But the Revolutionary Guard was founded precisely to take on sensitive missions for the Supreme Leader, since the pro-Shah army was considered unreliable. Indeed, the Supreme Leader appoints the head of the Revolutionary Guard. If he were unhappy with provocative "rogue actions," he could replace him. He hasn’t.
Why would he? Iran won't stop so long as there is no price to its acts of war. The controversy over Lieberman's remark shows how we aren't prepared to make it pay one.
By The Editors of National Review
 | America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
CBSNews.com On Digg
Add a Comment See all 62 Comments
- It occurred to me that if Al Gore had taken office in 2001 and he had won a second term, Joe would be our VP now. Maybe some good can come from what happened in 2000 after all.
- Reply to this comment
- Now that the war profiteers, (the real power telling Bush and his gang what to do) have their 100 year war on, Joe is lining up for his piece of the cake. All the candidates for president on both sides are pre-ordering their villas in the south of France, none of them is the least bit concerned for the human cost of their lunacy, and are oblivious of the backlash that is starting to gather steam.
All here who still point fingers of partisan blame are missing the point, is the bomb red, or blue?
It doesn't matter, folks, when it explodes you will all be red, for an instant.
Best get over the divisions, and stop these sick people, because too late is sooner than you realize... - Reply to this comment
- Why don,t we go one more step and sell electric there cheaper than they can pay for the nuts and bolts too build their nuke plants.
- Reply to this comment
- "The kind of Zionism that Lieberman supports is the one manufactured for the sake of Anglo-American imperialism--it has little to do with what is good for Israel...aside, from the sick and twisted racists of the Likud and their ilk.
It has little or nothing to do with what most Jews in America believe."
Posted by Prinzowhales at 09:02 AM : Jun 19, 2007
I always wondered about that - I could see that being totally true . . . like Lieberman, Wolfowitz, are the Bush, Cheney, elites who the rest of us no matter what our faiths think our out of control . . . - Reply to this comment
- mudrose- Because of the failed policies of your hero and "leader" Boy George Bush, Osama ("wanted dead, or alive") is laughing his tail off somewhere and contemplating a happy terrorist retirement.
What a bunch of losers and abject failures you Repubs are. Go go grow a pair... - Reply to this comment
- I pledge allegience to the United States Of Israel and to the People's Republic of Halliburton for which it stands..."
Posted by JohnShaft4
Why don't you just go and pledge your allegience to Osama you creep. - Reply to this comment
- National Peeuu: "Too many contemporary fans of "diplomacy" are invoking it with no appreciation for its limits %u2014 and no fallback plan when it fails."
Please, do tell: what's the fallback plan for WAR when it fails? Seems to me THAT's the plan we really need!
"Iran won't stop so long as there is no price to its acts of war." Change the first letter 'n' to a 'q' and its deja vu 2002. Some people never learn. - Reply to this comment
- I pledge allegience to the United States Of Israel and to the People's Republic of Halliburton for which it stands..."
- Reply to this comment
- "Liberals are pissed Because they were beat by the silent majority"
Is that why the majority of Americans voted Democratic in 2006? - Reply to this comment
- Lieberman needs to decide which country he wants to be a citizen of, the U.S. or Israel. As a U.S. Senator he needs to put the welfare of the U.S. and it's citizens first, second and third. Let Israel worry about themselves. His other option would be to give up his U.S. citizenship and move to Israel. This should be a U.S. policy. No politician can have dual citizenship or loyality to any other country. All that should matter is what will benifit U.S. citizens the most. The first thing would be to pull all foreign aid and give us citizens a tax cut. I could use another 42 inch TV, the shows my wife watches are really bad.
- Reply to this comment
