Sen. Joe Lieberman has a must-read op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal. He urges his colleagues in Congress to take a hard line against Iran in order to "restore the fear" of deterrence, "and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running." Lieberman counsels a diplomatic track in confronting Iran, but he rightly points out that diplomacy can only work if it is backed by the credible threat of the use of force.
The fact is, any diplomacy with Iran is more likely to be effective if it is backed by a credible threat of force--credible in the dual sense that we mean it, and the Iranians believe it. Our objective here is deterrence. The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation. It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running. I hope the new revelations about Iran's behavior will also temper the enthusiasm of some of those in Congress who are advocating the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Iran's purpose in sponsoring attacks on American soldiers, after all, is clear: It hopes to push the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so that its proxies can then dominate these states. Tehran knows that an American retreat under fire would send an unmistakable message throughout the region that Iran is on the rise and America is on the run. That would be a disaster for the region and the U.S. The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. It must be confronted head-on. The regime in Iran is betting that our political disunity in Washington will constrain us in responding to its attacks. For the sake of our nation's security, we must unite and prove them wrong.
I've just taken a quick look at the blog reactions to this piece, and it's pretty interesting how feeble the rebuttal is. At Reason's Hit and Run blog, David Weigel latches on to Lieberman's call for "unity" in the face of the growing threat from Iran. He says Lieberman's piece illustrates the point made by " some dude named Thoreau," who warns that unity means "marching lockstep behind the government," in which case "you can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye." If I can just say, someone who is seriously concerned about the effect of militarism on civil liberties might do their cause a service by avoiding reference to "some dude named Thoreau." Weigel also points to this survey showing that some 60 percent of Americans oppose a war with Iran. Okay...but should this country's foreign policy really be determined by polls: a recent survey shows 89 percent of the country can't name the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and another 41 percent think Saddam was responsible for 9/11. This isn't American Idol. The question is whether Iran represents a serious threat to the United States, and Lieberman is out making that case, trying to build support. Another retort comes from lefty blogger Taylor Marsh,
Iran does not pose any threat to "our security as a nation." No doubt, there are elements within the Iranian regime who are hell bent on taking advantage of the incredibly stupid and incompetent way in which the Bush-Cheney administration has handled Iraq and the foreign policy of this nation. But how is further stretching our military, not to mention our treasury, towards a fight with Iran going to help? How is this going to help us fight radical jihadism worldwide when we so desperately need allies to solve the challenges raging in Iraq? America is at an all time low in the world's eyes. How does targeting Iran help?
So, to Lieberman's evidence that Iran does pose a threat, Marsh just says nuh-uh. She adds that targeting Iran won't help this country's image "in the world's eyes." Well, is that really the be all and end all of U.S. foreign policy? Were we to intervene in Darfur--to take an example that might appeal to some on the left--the point would not be to win some global popularity contest, it would be to stop a genocide. One shouldn't expect too much from the level of discourse in the blogosphere (you don't go to war with the blogosphere you wish you had), but if this is the substance of the left/libertarian opposition to a more confrontational approach in dealing with Iran, Weigel shouldn't be too surprised when that 60 percent opposing a war with Iran starts to dwindle--it has dropped five points in just the last six months.