TPM LiveWire
Graham On Iran: 'Take Military Action Before They Get A Weapon'
Ben Frumin | October 4, 2009, 11:29AM
Share
Send to a friend!
On Fox News Sunday today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested that military action against Iran -- while a "last resort" -- is a possibility, and perhaps an eventual necessity.
If sanctions fail, and Iran's going down the road to get a nuclear weapon, every Sunni Arab state that could would want a nuclear weapon. Israel would be more imperiled. The world would change dramatically for the worse. And if we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities, we should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float.
That's a "last resort," Graham said again, before adding that the U.S. should "take military action before they get a weapon."
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) seemed to agree. "It's an all-or-nothing deal," Chambliss said, explaining that Iran's nuclear capability can't be wiped out with an air strike. "A full-out military strike is what it would take."
To be fair, neither Senator was calling for immediate military action against Iran. Both called for sanctions first, while also casting some dispersion on ongoing multilateral negotiations.
"Just continuing the dialogue with them and threatening them with sanctions, if the President's gonna take that attitude, I don't think we're gonna get anywhere," Chambliss said.
Instead, Graham said, the United States should impose sanctions now, and dial them back if and when Iran meets U.S. inspection demands. "Let's have 'Iran Week' in the Senate and get something done," he said.
Even Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), also appearing on Fox News Sunday, was willing to discuss the possibility of military action against Iran -- though said sanctions come first.
"We are on a path to a nuclear Iran which is an unacceptable course," he said. "If we are gonna avoid a very painful dilemma of either having to live with that or taking military action to prevent that, which may ultimately be a choice we have to face, we need to act now on the financial and economic side."
Bayh continued: "We've gotta have firm deadlines, the sooner the better, and real consequences if those deadlines aren't met."
Late Update: Here's the video.
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
- Where Does This Leave Us?
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- Sarah Palin Goes Rogue With Bill O'Reilly
- Lincoln: "I'll Filibuster A Public Option Bill"
- Reid Slams Broder As A Retiree Who 'Writes A Column Once In A While'
- HCAN: "It's a Shame Not a Single Republican" Voted To Allow Debate
- Bernie Sanders: 'My Vote For The Final Bill Is By No Means Guaranteed'
- Stewart Takes Down KSM Trial Fearmongerers
- Owens Winning The Absentee Ballots In NY-23
- Lincoln: "I'll Filibuster A Public Option Bill"
- Landrieu To Reid: No Triggers, No Bill--Negotiating Compromise With Schumer
- Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign
- Reid Slams Broder As A Retiree Who 'Writes A Column Once In A While'
- Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill
- 60! Blanche Lincoln Says She'll Support Health Care Debate
- RATIONAL RATIONING
- Senate Debates Historic Health Care Bill
- Sarah Should Take Her Shirt Off
- Background and Foreground: The Cause of Irrational Fear
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
rbeats
October 4, 2009 11:58 AM
Let Israel do it, we already gave them the military and money to pull it off. I'm sure they would love to drop some more bombs. Maybe they could move some settlements outside Tehran after they get done. Be damned what international borders state.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hallam
October 4, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to rbeats
Israel can't do it. They do not have the range unless they cross over Iraq. And if the US permits Israel to cross over Iraq for a hostile attack on another state, that is an act of war.
Even if Israel can get there and back, they do not know where all the facilities are. The only ones we know about are the declared ones. Only a fool would think that those are the only ones.
Contrary to what the neo-con fantasists who got the US into the Iraq quagmire contend, the Iranian regime has plenty of capacity for inflicting casualties on the US. The green zone is easily within range and they can shut down the Straits of Hormuz to the commercial shipping that delivers oil.
The Iranian regime very clearly desires an attack by Israel. An attack by the US would be second best but would meet their need to distract internal attention from their election fraud and allow them to crack down on the opposition as supporters of the foreign aggressors.
The way in which the election was stolen makes it clear that the regime wanted people to know that they had been cheated. It was a clear power play be Ahmedinejad against the clerics who have now been forced to discard any claim to legitimacy in order to endorse the result. Ahmedinejad wants people to know that they are living in a dictatorship and that he is now the power in the land to be reckoned with.
I bet the regime tipped the US off to the location of the site on purpose. Then when the US refused to act they were about to reveal it themselves. Ahmedinejad appears to have planned for an attack by the US or Israel as part of his election stealling strategy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
diachronic
October 4, 2009 6:00 PM in reply to hallam
"The Iranian regime very clearly desires an attack by Israel"
Accurate. And they clearly are hoping for on all-out Israeli exercise of stupidity and for American Rapture enthusiasts like Lindsey Graham (or more accurately, his brain-dead constituency) to cheer them on.
But that, for Iran, is merely a best-case scenario. Clearly they are not going to stake everything on this long shot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
October 5, 2009 10:45 AM in reply to hallam
Right. And I clearly desire a home invasion robbery so I can collect on my insurance. Just so long as they don't kill my dog.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
October 4, 2009 4:02 PM in reply to rbeats
Agreed Israel has the 6th largest army in the world, they dont need us holding their hands. If they want to attack iran let them do it.
And its funny how we dont have the money for health care but we have the money to fight another republican war. Iraq wasnt enough?
Why the hell would we attack iran anyway? they havent attacked us why would we purposely led an unprovoked war against a soverign nation..... oh right.... republicans
Im convinced these people dont care about the country, They oppose health care to keep people sick and for them to die quickly, they oppose education to get people dumb and unemployed, they oppose the olympics which would have brought thousands of jobs. And now they want us to go die for Israel.
Israel the country that hasnt done shit for anyone Israel the country that keeps taking away peoples homes and then labeling them terrorists when they decide to standup to them.
Yeah we should send americans to die for Israel.
Alan Grayson was right, the republican plan IN GENERAL is for average americans to DIE QUICKLY.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
October 5, 2009 9:44 AM in reply to rbeats
Is it just me, or does he have the prettiest eyes you ever saw?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
October 5, 2009 10:46 AM in reply to Chris
It's just you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
October 4, 2009 12:05 PM
god, if only policy would allow lindsay graham to wear a uniform...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
October 4, 2009 12:23 PM in reply to benjoya
Also too bad he doesn't have any children to send on his military adventure...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mooser
October 4, 2009 12:18 PM
benjoya, why can't Graham resign his seat and join the Armed Forces. Just think of the boost it will give his political career when he returns "The Hero of the War on Iran!"
Surely, he is not going to leave the task of reducing the Iranians to some unspecified 'others" is he? That would be, well, chickenhawkish, and that's shameful, don't you think?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
October 4, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to Mooser
"why can't Graham resign his seat and join the Armed Forces"
Well that is a question that about 100% of Beltway Villagers could answer and a bunch of people outside.
Unless Grahams last act as a Senator is to successfully vote to overturn DADT he is not exactly eligible for service in a combat zone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ramblindore
October 4, 2009 12:28 PM
Actually, he is in the Air Force Reserves, and he holds the rank of Colonel (O6). Last I knew, he was a military judge. Also, he has done his annual training in Afghanistan for the last couple of years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Micheal
October 4, 2009 12:34 PM
You can't have Countries like Iran thinking they can do anything they want. We've given them enough chances. We have them surrounded on three sides already. One Cruise Missle flown into the front door of the new facility will wake them up to the fact that the World is a Global entity, and that they need to get into the 21st century.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
October 4, 2009 12:43 PM in reply to Micheal
oh, it will only take one cruise missile? why didn't you say so. i mean,, it's not like they would send missiles over their border to attack american troops in iraq, or over their other border to attack american troops in afghanistan, or towards israel. that would be just mean. sure, they're technically not in violation of the NPT and they haven't attacked another country in over a hundred years, but still, they have such shifty eyes, you know they're up to no good. and if that one cruise missile doesn't do it, well, i'm sure we've got a half-million troops lying around somewhere to occupy them. don't we?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
October 4, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to benjoya
oh, another thing they would never ever do would be to cut off oil through the straits of hormuz. cause they're all irrational lunatics with a collective death wish, but cutting off oil is far beyond what they're capable of. i mean they're suicidal end-time fundamentalists (even the opposition, i'm sure), but they would never do anything that crazy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
October 4, 2009 4:13 PM in reply to benjoya
funny how lots of the clowns screaming about how dangerous Iran is to america dont know that Iran is right beside iraq. If they wanted to attack americans they would have attacked the US troops in iraq
The truth is Iran doesnt give a damn about the USA. We are being scammed and exploited by the parasite israel as usual
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
October 4, 2009 12:49 PM in reply to Micheal
oh, almost missed this.
the World is a Global entity,
genius!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
October 4, 2009 1:15 PM in reply to benjoya
Somebody needs to tell Ms. Palin to stop posting under a pseudonym.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
October 4, 2009 1:02 PM in reply to Micheal
It would be nice if America joined the 21st century.
I mean we have people debating how best to make a profit on the sick and poor in our health care debate. There is no debate about the morality, just how best to make a profit.
We have powerful Senators, and Congressmen/woman stating that there is no Global Warming because Jesus is looking after us. (They actual believe that shit)
We support the Israelis illegally displacing millions of people because of words written by ignorant sheep herders who thought a wheel barrel was state of the art, said so.
We subject people who happen to love people of the same gender to barbaric harassment, because once again of almost unintelligible words written by those same sheep herders children.
I think you should work on moving the United States into the 21st century Michael.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
October 4, 2009 2:43 PM in reply to Micheal
Sounds like the neocon is channeling Michael Ledeen-
"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
October 4, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to Micheal
and why cant Iran do whatever they want? We seem to be fine allowing israel to
If Iran wants nukes let them get it. We have them, so who are we to tell them they cant have them?
Preemptive warfare is a Pussy ass policy. The theory is to prevent an attack by killing american soldiers.
genius plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
October 4, 2009 12:38 PM
jeez, sorry for not spelling out every detail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
October 4, 2009 12:44 PM in reply to benjoya
i mean about the ahamgray aygay ingthay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eronbo
October 4, 2009 12:49 PM
I continue to be amazed at our double standard. Lets bomb Iran for their potential nukes but not a peep about nuke proliferation by Pakistan right under our nose! Israel has nukes. If I were Iranian that would scare me and I would consider a quid pro quo. Isn't that the rationale that underpinned two generations of US policy toward the Soviets. Enough of the thoughtless bellicosity from the Republican right!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hallam
October 4, 2009 1:21 PM in reply to eronbo
The Iranian negotiating position will probably turn out to be a 'magnanimous' offer for Iran to give up its nukes if and only if Israel agrees to do the same.
I for one have a hard time seeing how the US manages to deflect that strategy without coming off as a hypocrite. Iran has ticked off plenty of countries, but not so recently as the US has by invading Iraq.
Now imagine that there is an Israeli or US attack. Neither has the slightest chance of success since we have no idea where the uranium is.
The best estimates we have suggest that Iran has either completed its bomb already or has stopped just short of completion. Which is what Pakistan and India did for over a decade. The UK and France both built bombs in the aftermath of WWII, both countries were considerably poorer than modern day Iran and they lacked modern computing and CNC machine tools. Any country that has uranium reserves (as Iran does) can have a bomb if they want to.
So if Iran is attacked, the most likely outcome in my view would be that they shut down the straits immediately, the price of oil spikes and the war is shut down within a week.
If the US was either the attacker or had allowed use of Iraqi airspace, then expect there to be thousands of US casualties. It would not be very hard for a country that only wanted to inflict casualties on the US and was indifferent to the casualties it sustained to inflict casualties on the US in Iraq.
I don't think that there is any possibility that the Obama administration would attack, which leaves an Israeli attack against the will of the US President. I think that would be a total catastrophe for Israeli interests.
If Iran is attacked, they will withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty, wait eight to eighteen months and then perform their own nuclear test. At which point the offer of multilateral disarmament will appear to be quite reasonable.
Iran was very skillful in manipulating the last administration. They persuaded them to take out their principal regional threat and replace him with a convicted confidence trickster, the Bernie Madoff of Lebanon.
It would be rather nice if those people whose ignorance and incompetence has been proven beyond doubt by the fiasco they caused in Iraq would shut up and be silent for a decent interval. Certainly nobody should listen to them until they have admitted their own errors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
October 4, 2009 2:45 PM in reply to hallam
Well said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
October 4, 2009 1:35 PM in reply to eronbo
When determining if a saber-rattling will work, our double standard is logical.
I don't have a nuclear weapon. That means that your massive conventional superiority still matters, and if you like, you can control my harbors and my skies within hours or days of committing forces. After that, it's just a matter of moving troops and materiel to the desired locations, and fumbling your way through an occupation as we are now.
Or, I have a nuclear weapon. That means your beachhead could disappear in a blinding white flash. America can tolerate its professional military fighting a far-off, inconsequential war, until several thousand die at once, and then people start talking about why we're really there and if it would matter if we immediately left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
October 4, 2009 12:54 PM
He's a Lt.Col in either the Guard or Reserve ...legal beagle no less so he doesn't have to worry about being on the front line or in the line of fire. Brave words from someone with an extra wide yellow stripe on their backside.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
October 4, 2009 1:28 PM
Remind me again which nation and which RELIGION is responsible for the only detonations (plural) of a nuclear device?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 4, 2009 1:28 PM
Insane talk from an insane cracker Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
October 4, 2009 1:34 PM
America needs to hear a lot less from Lindsay Graham and a lot more from Larry Graham.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
October 4, 2009 1:44 PM
To say nothing of the overall craziness. Methinks Lindsay needs to look up the history of the Iraq-Iran War. Are American soldiers really ready to gun down thousands of kids on a suicide attack? Are we prepared to use chemical weapons on the battlefield, which is pretty much all that kept Saddam from being overrun by the Revolutionary Guard? You can talk glibly about taking away Iran's ability to wage conventional war, but it is amazing how much damage 200,000 Revolutionary Guards armed only with a spear and a backback of explosives can inflict on our soldiers in Iraq. Or maybe Graham is proposing eliminating all diesel and fertilizer to remove Iran's ability to build truck bombs and confiscating all its sulfur and saltpeter so it can't manufacture gunpowder.
I don't know how many men of military age, which in an Iranian context probably means 15-60 years old, there are in a country of 66 million. But enough to make me nervous if I was manning an outpost outside of Basra. This is beyond craziness, this is just brazen pandering to the Red Dawn crowd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
October 4, 2009 2:39 PM
Any attack on Iran would probably spike oil prices after Iran closes the Persian Gulf to shipping. Expect terrorist attacks against Americans and their allies worldwide. Does Lindsey really want to bring this on?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
October 5, 2009 10:50 AM in reply to jeffgee
I doubt he thinks that far ahead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dogslikelasagna
October 4, 2009 2:47 PM
« Return to Graham On Iran: 'Take Military Action Before They Get A Weapon'.
Anonymous
October 4, 2009 2:40 PM
Wait. Wasn't there a big item in the news yesterday about Iran agreeing to inspections soon? That diplomatic efforts seemed to be bearing immediate fruit? Many of these responses seem to live in a world apart.
Personally, I believe that all people were created equal with equal rights. Apparently quite a few of the posters here do not subscribe to our basic values. Dramatically anti-American, if you ask me. We have more nuclear weapons than anyone. We're the only country to have used one. We're the biggest arms trader in the world. We left or have refused to ever join numerous arms treaties. We have invaded and are currently occupying two countries bordering Iran(think Iran making war in Canada and Mexico and threatening us all the time, are you fine with that?). We allow Israel to be in constant violation of numerous UN resolutions, to violate international law at will, and to "enjoy" an enormous and undeclared nuclear stockpile while refusing ANY inspections of any sites or even acknowledgment that the weapons exist. The only way for that to be fine for Israel and for Iran not to be allowed anything and presumed guilty if they go to take a shit cuz some idiot from South Carolina is gonna say they're clearly going to build a nuclear shit and we gotta stop 'em is to embrace hypocrisy. Israel, India, and Pakistan all refuse to sign the NPT and all have the bomb. Not a peep from us. We have been talking of war with Iran for years. We get to tell ANYONE what weapons they can or cannot have? Based on what? The answer-- we're good. we're superior. we stand for justice. we're fighting for freedom. we're truth. we're right. they're bad. they're evil. everything they do only and always has to do with our destruction. we're hypocrits. we don't make sense. we're blind. we live in fear, ignorance, and denial. we can do what we want. you shut up, Lasagna.
Anyone is free to be as hypocritical as they want. To think(or refuse to consider)that the rest of the world doesn't see right through such hypocrisy is to live in a universe of denial so profound I don't know why I'm bothering to point any of these glaring inconsistencies out. Shut, angry, aggressive, hypocritical minds. The scariest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fitley
October 4, 2009 2:56 PM
It's great that we have such a manly man to keep other nations in check. You tell em Nancy, keep up the good work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
unknowncitizen
October 4, 2009 6:07 PM
Lasagna?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dogslikelasagna
October 4, 2009 7:52 PM
Sorry, I'm still new at this. Didn't realize my name, David Lasagna, is not on my comment entry. I'm usually commenting over at Bradblog. When I signed up there I went the simple route and just used my name. I signed up here long ago but rarely post cuz I'm computer illiterate and usually find some way to screw it up or get lost in navigating proper posting procedure. My user name here is dogslikelasagna which I guess no longer fits on an entry.
Sorry, for the confusion.(Though I'm laughing at the thought of Lasagna just appearing out of the blue and how weird that must've been for anyone who'd bothered to read my post).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Anasazi
October 5, 2009 1:00 AM
The fact is Iran will become a nuclear power, just like Israel. The question is will America become Iran's nuclear target for attaching it with conventional weapons?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?