Senator Lieberman’s Call to Attack Iran Is a Dangerous Provocation
August 12, 2007 – 12:28 pmU.S.- Iran Peace Project
www.usiranpeace.com
August 14, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Senator Lieberman’s Call to Attack Iran is a Dangerous Provocation
Senator Joe Liebermans repeated calls to take military action against Iran not only compounds his error of supporting the Bush Administration’s failed “stay the course, policy in Iraq� but is far more dangerous. Pursuing a high-risk military venture when the “troop surge� has failed to bring stability to Iraq , and al Queda is gathering strength in Afghanistan seemingly defies logic. But the nexus of Lieberman’s appeal to attack Iran mirrors the Bush administration’s rationale for the continued prosecution of the Iraq War; America must win because we cannot afford to lose. For Lieberman, the U.S. must staunch Iran ’s growing influence in Iraq and the Persian Gulf now, or confront a more formidable adversary down the road.
Lieberman has justified his call for military strikes and a bombing campaign against Iran by saying “We’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq . By some estimates they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers.� In truth, no Iranian soldiers have ever been accused of killing American troops in Iraq . The five Iranians being held in U.S. custody in Iraq are accused of smuggling weapons and providing training to Shiit’e militia forces. Nevertheless, Lieberman’s assertions that Iranian-made Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) used by Iraqi Shiite forces and linked to 200 of the 3,664 American fatalities in Iraq , constitutes sufficient cause to commence military hostilities against Iran .
Implicit in Lieberman’s reasoning for attacking Tehran is that Iranian expansionism and interference in Iraq has plunged the nation into chaos and civil war. Apparently it’s a matter of indifference to Senator Lieberman that the Sunni/al Queda terror campaign that pointed Iraq toward sectarian violence has been largely financed by America’s most “loyal allies� in the Middle East; Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. There is also Lieberman’s convenient oversight that seventy-five percent of all foreign fighters killed in Iraq are Saudi nationals. Although polls have consistently shown the majority of Iraqi citizens approve of attacks on American troops, none of this poses a problem for “Fighting Joe.� Like every U.S. policy setback in the Middle East today, from Israel ’s ill fated invasion of Lebanon , to Syrian state terrorism, to the collapse of the Roadmap to Peace between Israel and the Palestinians,� Iran is the cause and source of all evil.
Just as disconcerting is Fighting Joe’s attempt to expand Bush’s doctrine of “pre-emption� to Iran. Lieberman predicted that “If we do not do something, they ( Iran ) will interpret it as a sign of weakness and we will have to pay for it later in Iraq or right here in the United States .� More than simply mimicking President Bush’s jingoistic rhetoric, Lieberman’s statement is a blatant provocation whose singular purpose can only be justification for military action against Iran.
Having progressed from advocating “hot pursuits� and “cross border raids� into Iran, to bombing campaigns bent on destroying training bases, the next stop on Lieberman’s train of escalations will inexorably bring Iranian nuclear targets into his crosshairs. While Lieberman appears to offer a measured military response to Iran ’s growing involvement in Iraq and funding of radical Middle Eastern groups, his call to arms is fraught with perilous consequences. Iran will not simply acquiesce to cross border raids and blatant violations of its sovereignty; they will respond in kind, if not significantly upping the ante. Fears being expressed today about widening the Iraq War into a regional conflagration would almost certainly come full circle if the U.S. attacks Iran.
The sense of urgency attendant to Lieberman’s saber rattling is perhaps its most compelling feature. The clamor of Beltway hawks for military strikes to degrade Iran’s emerging nuclear program are growing despite the fact that most experts believe Tehran is three to five years away from mastering the uranium enrichment process. So what’s the rush? Among U.S. military and foreign policy hardliners a consensus is emerging that if Bush doesn’t strike Tehran before his term expires in January 2009, Iran will likely cross the nuclear Rubicon under a new “liberal� Democratic president’s watch; a curious notion considering a premium has been placed on Iran-bashing among most Democratic presidential hopefuls.
In fairness to Lieberman, his skepticism about the dominant Democratic Party position for withdrawing from Iraq without a plan for stabilizing Iraq or the region is well founded. The Democrats want out of Iraq but lack the courage or foresight to advance anything resembling a serious approach to where American foreign policy goes from there. Ironically, the Democrats phased withdrawal from Iraq would likely lead to the Shiite and reluctant Kurds, drowning the Sunni insurgency in a bloodbath that will reach genocidal proportions; a situation that would force Iran to back its Shi’a brethren to the hilt. Given a choice between the Democrats irresponsible approach to Iraq War, and the risky Bush approach to “hold the line at all costs� while launching strikes to push back the Iranian juggernaut, Lieberman has cast his lot with the Bush doctrine.
Thus Fighting Joe’s “damn the torpedoes� approach warms to the moment at hand. In the aftermath of the WMD debacle in Iraq, support for a pre-emptive strike against Iran to halt their “nuclear program� will not fly with the American public. However, by targeting Iran as a threat to America’s energy security in the Persian Gulf and sourcing Iran as “the problem� in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Syria and more recently in
Afghanistan, Lieberman and his ilk hope to convince Americans that Iran is a menace that must be eradicated before it poses an existential threat to the United States. President Bush’s proposal for placing missile defense systems in Poland and Czechoslovakia to deter “future� Iranian missile attacks is laying the groundwork for this scenario. President Putin and the Russians have scorned the proposed “missile defense shield� as a destabilizing deployment aimed at their homeland.
Similarly, the American people should not be confused by the recent opening of talks between the U.S. and Iran. America has been forced to the table with Iran, because of its increasing influence in Iraq and its growing power in the Middle East. At the conclusion of the second round of meetings between U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Iranian diplomats in September, Crocker blasted Iran again claiming their involvement with Shiit’e militias had increased since the two countries first met in August. In short, the U.S. may be using the talks as foil to appear they are attempting to negotiate in good faith, but the Iranians are hell bent on mischief in Iraq, killing American troops and cannot be trusted on the nuclear issue.
As an “independentâ€? with Democratic leanings, and a respected voice of “reason and bipartisanship,â€? Lieberman’s crusade to adopt a more confrontational posture towards Iran carries a great deal of weight in Washington , D.C. Sadly, Fighting Joe is on the wrong side of history and the march of events in the Middle East. A new American foreign policy is needed now to grapple with the emerging realities of a New Middle East; one in which a durable peace in the region will not be realized without a sophisticated and nuanced approach to a rising Iran.
********************************
Webster Brooks is the Editor of the U.S. Iran Peace Project website: www.usiranpeace.com His articles have appeared on numerous websites and print press in the U.S. across the Middle East
2 Responses to “Senator Lieberman’s Call to Attack Iran Is a Dangerous Provocation”
The increasingly acrimonious between Iran and the neocon/Israeli extreme right alliance is a competition that poses a threat the world ignores at its peril. The Iranian-Israeli competition is being framed by irresponsible extremists on each side as a zero-sum game, a thoughtless gamble that threatens disaster.
Unlike the alleged “threat” posed by Saddam in 2003, an Iranian-Israeli competition fueled by extremists on both sides with a Manichean view of world affairs and a naïve faith in the utility of violence poses a very real threat indeed. It is the threat of the collapse of perhaps the greatest pillar of international morality still standing in the barbaric 21st century: nuclear powers shall not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers. Should this pillar be toppled, should the unique double tragedy of Nagasaki-Hiroshima be repeated and, much worse, extended to include nuclear strikes against non-nuclear countries that have not attacked first, the whole world will suffer.
But these, of course, are just my opinions, and opinions are easy to spew out. It would be far more judicious if concerned Americans would spend more time thinking about the wide range of options that actually exist. Many methods exist that can help us take a careful look at the future and think about steps to create the future we desire. The hubris of the blind is not the only way.
By William deB. Mills on Aug 12, 2007
Suggest a sophisticated and nuanced approach to a rising nation like Iran in which religious dogma forms the basis of a world view. Or is this just a matter of smoke and mirrors on their part, with a hidden agenda the West cannot guess at?
Is there a 21st century Neville Chamberlain in the wings who will promise us peace in our time. If so, how much “Lebensraum” do you suppose Iran require?
By DAD on Aug 12, 2007