Quote from hapaboy:
What did Lieberman say that wasn't true?
I have mixed feelings on this issue, hapa.
First, I do NOT believe Iran poses a serious military threat to Israel or the U.S.
That's not to say that they don't possess the means to destabilize the Persian Gulf if they so intended.
I do and will agree that the threat that Israel perceives is a future threat that may materialize, if Iran achieves advanced missile technology.
This has been a long-standing fear of Israel, and going back to the Cold War, many in the U.S. Military/Pentagon made a bold case that Israel was a strategic dead weight as an ally to the U.S. as against the USSR, as Israel is very small geographically, and would be highly vulnerable to Soviet missile strikes.
For the time being, now that the Cold War has passed, we (Americans) need to reassess realpolitik as it pertains to our relationship with Israel, IMO.
This doesn't mean abandoning Israel. However, it may mean reigning in Israel's impulses while we use a more aggressive diplomacy to reshape the dynamic relations in the ME, even if some of Israel's aspirations have to be tamped down.
And that's where the legitimate debate with Lieberman enters the fray: Is Lieberman saying what he's saying and (presumably) prepared to do what he's suggesting - i.e. pushing the U.S. toward a more hawkish stance towards Iran - because he's more concerned about Israel's interests, or more concerned about America's interests?
The two are not as intertwined as some may suggest, and may have been in the past (arguably, though debatable).
Nothing is more essential than demanding that those elected to represent the interests of the United States do so without emotional or sentimental baggage that may cloud their judgment and prevent them from doing so, whether the topic is Israel, Iran, Germany or Timbuktu.
