WASHINGTON COLUMN: "Lieberman says U.S. should weigh military strike on Iran," compiled by John Q. Buckley, USA Today, 11 June 2007, p. 16A.EDITORIAL: "Loose talk about nukes could sink U.S. interests," USA Today, 11 June 2007, p. 22A.
Wow. What a surprise.
I guess I could say "another country heard from," but it feels like the same country time and time again.
Iran's support to anti-American elements in both Iraq and Afghanistan can hardly be questioned. It's also completely unsurprising given our relationship with Iran under Bush and the fact that we've toppled regimes on both sides of Tehran. Moreover, this Iranian support's been apparent for a long while.
Now, of course, it's new "news" that must be trumpeted again and again. Why? Somebody's gotta be blamed for the failure of the surge, and if that target scratches Israel's very intense itch, then so much the better, argue some.
Now we even have presidential candidates casually discussing the use of tactical nukes on Iran, which simultaneously admits we've come to that stand-off (my point that Iran has a rough-but-asymmetrical-deterrence already--as in, we must go nuclear to really take out their nuclear) and then unthinkingly promotes the notion that this line is reasonably and easily crossed.
Just step back for a second and think about America using tactical nukes in the Persian Gulf pre-emptively.
Such is the state of the strategic discourse encouraged by this administration.
What needs to get questioned is how wide we want these wars to spread in the region, given our current strains and increasing isolation from even close historical allies.
I have said from the start in PNM: do the Big Bang sequentially and keep Americans along for the ride. Let it pile up and accumulate, though, and you lose public support, because the progress won't be clear and the sacrifices won't seem reasonable.
Before we wage war at Israel's bidding, we better have more dialogue on this subject than the professional fear-mongers and Israel's obvious supporters care to offer.
| Permalink |
Comments (5)
Unlike the run-up to the Iraq war, this is a lot more serious. Brushing aside unintended consequences in this case, not only do you jeopardize friends in the region that you have left, you jeopardize friends you may have. Possibly unleashing a terror in the Middle East that you can't fathom. someone needs to tell Lieberman pipe down.
Posted by Craig | June 11, 2007 7:50 PM
Lieberman is like a faded superstar. He has already said everything he has to say, so all he can do it keep repeating it. John Wayne could carry it off. Most musicians/actors who can't move on are left to parody themselves. Sad to see this passing for serious thought.
Posted by hof | June 11, 2007 8:35 PM
I do not favor radioactive gas.
Posted by Rick Price | June 13, 2007 3:44 AM
You display such deep thought and insight in every other topic you consider, yet, on Israel, retreat into the superficial and hackneyed reliability of blaming the region's only functioning democracy and her advocates for U.S. policies that aren't to your liking.
Let's stipulate for the moment you are accurate in your analysis regarding the actual threat of Iran. Let's also stipulate that those who see things differently than you -- specifically, those "professional fear-mongers and Israel's obvious [as opposed to surreptitious?] supporters" who advocate demonstrating to Iran that we are prepared to employ sticks as well as offer carrots in attempting to stop their "unsurprising" direct sponsorship of a proxy war of terrorism in Iraq -- have got it all wrong with regard to their analysis of the situation, both geopolitically and militarily. Let's further stipulate that those who "don't care to offer" "more dialogue" on the situation are also wrong on the threat of a nuclear Iran, that they are mistaken in believing that some are overly sanguine about a nuclear Iran joining the Core before unleashing a second Holocaust and/or holding the region captive in a way that prevents other states from beginning to further emerge from the Gap.
Those stipulations aside, why ascribe such thinking -- some erroneous in your opinion, I do understand -- to ulterior motives, to a desire to "scratch Israel's itch?" Such carefree ruminations can incite the worst kind of hatred, a willingness to entertain thoughts that lead to the scapegoating of Jews. It is a form of fear-mongering centuries old, and the embers of which, seemingly, are not yet ready to die out.
I certainly hope your subtle swipes at the motives of Americans who proudly support Israel are no more than just carefree ruminations. How disappointing if your thoughts on those unapologetically patriotic Americans who do consider Israel a staunch and loyal ally, who do think her well-being and safety are in America's interest, who do understand that Israel reciprocates to us so much in medical, scientific, and technological advancement in return for our necessary aid, who do feel that it is intellectually ignorant or dishonest to indulge in the rhetoric of those who blame Israel for the problems of nations of the Middle East -- how disappointing if these thoughts are the result of careful study and analysis.
Dr. Barnett, I do hope someone of your intellect and influence will reconsider the effects and veracity of impugning the motives behind those American citizens who don't see things the same way you do on some things, yet who are unalloyed and unambiguous supporters of the United States.
Posted by MJS | June 13, 2007 4:48 AM
How can you say Israel is not part of the problem? Please explain why we must hold their hands all the time?
Posted by KW | June 13, 2007 4:22 PM