Joe Lieberman: Iran's Best Friend
(originally posted at Unclaimed Territory)
As Glenn points out below, in his Washington Post op-ed today, Joe Lieberman all but declared war on Iran. Lieberman summed up the fault lines in the current conflict in Iraq thusly:
Let's put aside for the moment the fact that this is an absurd description of the actual state of affairs in Iraq. Let's put aside the fact that Lieberman implies here, and throughout the piece, that al Qaeda and Iran are somehow in cahoots (which is totally ridiculous). Let's just accept Lieberman's premises, as simplistic and strange as they are. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Iran really is the Supreme Enemy and is pulling all the strings behind the scenes.
If you accept all that, you are left with one inescapable conclusion: our Supreme Enemy has no better friend than Joe Lieberman.
There can be little doubt that, from an Iranian perspective, our invasion and occupation of Iraq has been an extraordinary windfall. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Saddam's Iraq was Iran's chief enemy and regional rival. The two nations had fought a long and costly war that eventually ended in a stalemate. They were checks on each other's power.
But then, at the urging of Joe Lieberman (who co-sponsored the Iraq war resolution), we invaded Iraq. In doing so, we not only eliminated Iran's chief regional rival, we replaced Saddam's regime with a Shiite-led regime that is destined to become, if it hasn't already, a client state of neighboring Iran. Not only that, but in the process of implementing this regime change, we managed to get ourselves bogged down in an endless guerilla conflict which exposed our weaknesses, depleted our manpower and resources, and rendered us both unable and unwilling to confront Iran in any meaningful way.
And throughout this slow-motion trainwreck, there has been no more outspoken and influential advocate of this policy (other than the President himself) than Senator Joe Lieberman. Seriously, had Iran managed to plant a "Manchurian Candidate" in the United States Senate back in 2002, a candidate whose secret agenda was to advance in any way possible policies that benefit Iran, that Senator could not possibly have done a better job than Joe Lieberman actually did. Iran is in an infinitely better position than it was four years ago, and due almost entirely to policies for which Lieberman has been the chief advocate.
Lieberman claims that if we don't "win" in Iraq, it will be a big victory for Iran. But, as Steve Clemons points out, the government we're fighting to support, the al-Maliki government, has the support of Iran. To the extent "victory" is defined as leaving Iraq in the hands of this Shiite-run, Iran-friendly regime (which is what Lieberman seems to think), it's hard to see Iran being terribly upset by such an outcome. I believe this is what's called a win-win situation, at least from Iran's perspective (from ours it's pretty clearly a lose-lose).
Moreover, it was beyond predictable that the primary beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq would be Iran. Yet I don't remember Joe Lieberman giving this obvious consideration even a moment's thought in the lead up to the Iraq invasion.
Lest my sarcasm be misunderstood, I obviously don't think Lieberman has been consciously trying to help Iran. But there can be no doubt that the policies he has championed have benefited Iran, immeasurably, a fact which makes Lieberman's current lectures about the dangers of Iran all the more exasperating and intolerable.
As Glenn points out below, in his Washington Post op-ed today, Joe Lieberman all but declared war on Iran. Lieberman summed up the fault lines in the current conflict in Iraq thusly:
On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States.
Let's put aside for the moment the fact that this is an absurd description of the actual state of affairs in Iraq. Let's put aside the fact that Lieberman implies here, and throughout the piece, that al Qaeda and Iran are somehow in cahoots (which is totally ridiculous). Let's just accept Lieberman's premises, as simplistic and strange as they are. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Iran really is the Supreme Enemy and is pulling all the strings behind the scenes.
If you accept all that, you are left with one inescapable conclusion: our Supreme Enemy has no better friend than Joe Lieberman.
There can be little doubt that, from an Iranian perspective, our invasion and occupation of Iraq has been an extraordinary windfall. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Saddam's Iraq was Iran's chief enemy and regional rival. The two nations had fought a long and costly war that eventually ended in a stalemate. They were checks on each other's power.
But then, at the urging of Joe Lieberman (who co-sponsored the Iraq war resolution), we invaded Iraq. In doing so, we not only eliminated Iran's chief regional rival, we replaced Saddam's regime with a Shiite-led regime that is destined to become, if it hasn't already, a client state of neighboring Iran. Not only that, but in the process of implementing this regime change, we managed to get ourselves bogged down in an endless guerilla conflict which exposed our weaknesses, depleted our manpower and resources, and rendered us both unable and unwilling to confront Iran in any meaningful way.
And throughout this slow-motion trainwreck, there has been no more outspoken and influential advocate of this policy (other than the President himself) than Senator Joe Lieberman. Seriously, had Iran managed to plant a "Manchurian Candidate" in the United States Senate back in 2002, a candidate whose secret agenda was to advance in any way possible policies that benefit Iran, that Senator could not possibly have done a better job than Joe Lieberman actually did. Iran is in an infinitely better position than it was four years ago, and due almost entirely to policies for which Lieberman has been the chief advocate.
Lieberman claims that if we don't "win" in Iraq, it will be a big victory for Iran. But, as Steve Clemons points out, the government we're fighting to support, the al-Maliki government, has the support of Iran. To the extent "victory" is defined as leaving Iraq in the hands of this Shiite-run, Iran-friendly regime (which is what Lieberman seems to think), it's hard to see Iran being terribly upset by such an outcome. I believe this is what's called a win-win situation, at least from Iran's perspective (from ours it's pretty clearly a lose-lose).
Moreover, it was beyond predictable that the primary beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq would be Iran. Yet I don't remember Joe Lieberman giving this obvious consideration even a moment's thought in the lead up to the Iraq invasion.
Lest my sarcasm be misunderstood, I obviously don't think Lieberman has been consciously trying to help Iran. But there can be no doubt that the policies he has championed have benefited Iran, immeasurably, a fact which makes Lieberman's current lectures about the dangers of Iran all the more exasperating and intolerable.
6 Comments:
Leiberman's problem is his undying loyalty to his cultural homeland Israel.
He cant see anything beyond Israel, so much that it clouds his vision of what anything means. Anything that is "pro-iran" in his eyes, the opposite opinion must be taken, regardless of whether that opposite opinion is also pro-iran.
Just give him time, he'll figure out his proper Iran-hate before things get ugly, I give him credit for that. Maybe nuking Iraq just to make sure Iran cant have it.
Let's put aside the fact that Lieberman implies here, and throughout the piece, that al Qaeda and Iran are somehow in cahoots (which is totally ridiculous).
I wish folks would put it aside, but the posts I have looked at (Clemons, Yglesias) both cite that, even though it is a very dubious talking point.
Lieberman does make the perfectly defensible point that both Iran and Al Qaeda can benefit from a weak, divided Iraq in which the US is bogged down, and casts this as a struggle between extremists from both sides versus the moderate Iraqi center (the existence and viability of which I question, BTW).
Noting the common interests of Iran and Al Qaeda is quite different from suggesting that they are allies, as anyone who reads Lieberman's piece will see.
One cite, for the non-clickers:
This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.
On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran.
Al Qaeda has been deliberately attacking Shi'ites as part of its alliance with Iran? Maybe Silvestre Reyes would be fooled, but any reasonable observer would follow Lieberman's train of thought.
Oh, one more example:
I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian violence. We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.
Well. Lieberman's argument is weak enough without his critics having to invent strawmen.
A last thought - your lead has been, hmm, Dowdified - here is Lieberman's full thought:
While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States.
That is hardly an attempt to provide what you label as "an absurd description of the actual state of affairs in Iraq." If I had to exert my telepathy, I would say that Lieberman is foressing a regional war between Iran/Hexbollah/Syria on one side and Saudi Arabia/Jordan on the other, with Turkey and Egypt as critical other players. A Saudi consultant (since sacked, but who doubts him?) discussed just such a possibility recently - if Iranian-backed Shi'ites commence a religious cleansing of Iraq, Saudi Arabia will feel obliged to support the Sunnis, and a regional war would be a likely outcome.
Tom Maguire
Tom,
Let me start with your last comment. I see your point about the "Dowdification" of the quote. It wasn't intentional, though. Just sloppiness on my part. I should have said "war on Terror" instead of Iraq in the sentences before and after the quote.
Nevertheless, it's an absurd description the overall fault lines in the Middle East. On the one side we have the forces of good (us and the "moderates"); on the other side we have all the bad guys (even though the bad guys actually hate each other; probably more than they hate us).
Throughout the piece Lieberman lumps all the "bad guys" together and makes it seem as if they are acting in concert or pursuing the same goals. It's absurd and cartoonish.
And while you point out that anyone with any real understanding of the actual fault lines and history of the Middle East will not be misled, most Americans know less than Sylvester Reyes. This kind of simplistic analysis only confuses people. It misinforms them.
And what really annoys me is the shifting of the goal posts. Suddenly Iran is the Great Enemy. There's no acknowledgment that everything we've been doing up until know has greatly strenghtened Iran's hand.
Lieberman is the lightest of lightweights when it comes to these issues. His understanding of the relevant fact always seems superficial and his analysis is always laughably simplistic. And there is never even a hint of acknowledgment about how wrong he has been every time he has opened his mouth on this subject. Go back and read some of his previous op-eds on Iraq, including the one from last November (you'll get a good laugh). Yet somehow Lieberman is always treated like some kind of expert on this subject. What total joke.
Lets see - we are supposed to be, according to the party line, opposing al Qae'da in Iraq, right? We can't "turn over the country to the terrorists," right? But al Qae'da is a Sunni group, and the Shi'a are the ones backedby Iran, right? So Lieberman just threw our lot in with al Qae'da
Holy chocolate-covered Christ.
Does anyone else feel like they have fallen through the looking glass?
How can anyone believe that Joe Lieberman is wrong about the iraq war. He is a religious man, with the highest of morals and integrity. Iraq has always been an enemy of Israel, a true threat to their egsistance. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Scooter Libby, Joe Lieberman and many other choosen people, are doing, and have done, Gods work here on earth. If they must lie about WMDs, so be it. If they have to connect Iraq with al-Qaida, let it be done. To be true or false with the goyim- what difference does it make! The goal – to make the American military take up arms aganist israel’s enemies. This is the zionist dream. And by their actions, and with the help of their media, they have suceeded in making israel’s enemies our own. Thousands if not millions of Americans will have to die, but to the Joe Lieberman’s of the world, that’s a risk they’re willing to take.
Rather than trying to identify enemies to destroy, focus on the socio-political context out of which they emerge, to ask how that context affects their behavior, and to alter that context to induce changes in the behavior of groups that are struggling to find roles for themselves in a highly confusing transitional situation.
Efforts by the militarily dominant to win the contest either through force or the threat of force rather than meeting at the negotiating table in a sincere effort to achieve a negotiated compromise that would leave each side at least minimally satisfied sets up a dangerous cycle. The weaker side learns that the strong "understand only force," are unwilling to compromise, and have no interest in understanding the grievances of the weak.
We have seen a string of demands by the strong in recent years that the weak "give up in advance." The battle between military superpowers and militarily weak opponents is asynchronous: the weak, unable to compete in traditional military terms, search for nontraditional ways of strengthening their hand.
In other words, when the strong take advantage of their strength, they teach the weak to be creative. Rubbing your opponent's nose in your superior strength may work if it works quickly, but the longer the opponent is able to resist, the greater the likelihood that, like vaccinations that provoke the evolution of more virulent bacteria, the experience will only strengthen the weak. This is not very smart policy for the strong.
Instead of carrying the day, cowboy foreign policy [http://shadowedforest.blogspot.com/2007/05/violence-in-complex-world-worth-effort.html] may only carry the minute, then backfire badly.--William deB. Mills
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home