Last year U-S Sen. Joseph Lieberman was rejected by the Connecticut Democratic party for renomination because of his dogged support for the U-S military effort in Iraq. So Lieberman ran as an independent and managed to win reelection in a three-way race.

Having survived such a bruising campaign, you'd figure Lieberman would tone town his hawkish stance on foreign affairs but no such luck. His latest controversy? The senator says the U-S should consider military attacks on Iran. Even Bush administration officials, architects of the Iraq war, don't want to go that far. So what's the deal with Joe?

The senator claims Iran is drunk with power and is fomenting trouble across the Middle East and beyond. Lieberman charges that Iran has bases near the Iraq border that are training and equipping Iraqi insurgents who slip back across the border and wreak havoc against U-S troops and the Iraqi citizenry with roadside explosive devices, car bombs, kidnappings, and other violent acts. Joe also claims Iran is fostering Hamas vs. Fatah violence in the Gaza Strip, promoting Hezbollah attacks in Lebanon, and helping Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

In his frequent travels in the Middle East, Lieberman says officials in Arab nations tell him they are watching closely to see if the U-S takes a strong stance on Iran because they fear unless the U-S pushes back, Iran will become ever bolder, pressing its influence throughout the region.

Lieberman's saber-rattling on Iran has startled many folks because public sentiment in America seems to favor an exit from Iraq, not new military adventures for an already-beleaguered U-S military force worldwide. The senator has been chastised in newspaper editorials since his first suggestions of military action against Iran. The Hartford Courant said in an editorial that "tensions are high enough without the senator ratcheting up the rhetoric by suggesting the United States take the war in Iraq over the border."

The senator explains that he is not suggesting America launch "a massive land invasion of Iran or bombing of civilian areas." Instead he hints that airstrikes might be needed to knock out the training camps in Iran near the Iraq border. But it's clear any size attack on Iran would incense officials in Teheran. Who can predict what their response would be?

Lieberman said settling differences between the U-S and any country "ought to begin with diplomacy" and said he's "glad" the U-S and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq met a few weeks ago to discuss American discontent with Iran's alleged involvement with the Iraqi insurgents. However, the senator said unless diplomacy is "backed with a credible threat of military consequences" Iran will "just keep killing American soldiers" through its support of the insurgency.

The senator said he's glad his outspoken views on Iran have fostered discussion and debate in Washington on Iran even if much of it has been criticism of his views. Asked if he fears his tough tone on Iran could hurt his image as a senator, Lieberman replied: "I don't worry about that, because I'm worried about America's security. I'm worried that we'll look back 10 or 15 years from now and say why was the world asleep as Iran began to move aggressively and we didn't do anything?"

Lieberman admitted that most of the e-mails and phone calls he's received about his Iran stance "have generally been negative" but added that he has received more mail about "a polar bear protection act that I'm proud to say I'm supporting."
 

Posted 6/18/07

Comments or questions?  Contact us at  CTReport@crnradio.com

© Connecticut Radio Network