Senators Bayh And Graham Contemplate Attacking Iran

Fox News Sunday sounded like a bipartisan war council on Sunday.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) said that he did not believe Iran would live up to the commitments it made in Geneva on Thursday to, among other things, permit inspections of its Qom nuclear facility.

Bayh said:

They have a pattern of deception. They have a pattern of breaking agreements that they agree to. This may be a further example of that.

They respect strength and strength alone. They're contemptuous of weakness. So having this dialogue is good, but you've got to hold them to their word. What matters ultimately is not what they say but what they do.

So will they allow the inspections to go forward? Will they actually send the uranium out of the country? What about other hidden facilities they may have? That's why we need to tee up all of these sanctions to raise the cost of misbehavior so that hopefully they'll change their mind.

But taking them at their word - absolutely not. I'm afraid they're running the clock on us - is what they're really doing.

Bayh's position is, in fact, not that different from Obama's - although his emphasis is. Neither the President nor our allies are suggesting the United States take Iran "at its word."

In fact, here is what the President himself said on the question of deeds not words:

To put it simply: Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is willing to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations. We have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer stands. But the Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.

Bayh has set up a strawman and then shot it down.  It suggests that he would like to appear to oppose Obama's stance while actually supporting it.

Then there was Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who was contemplating a military strike but, he said, "only if it's necessary."  (Thank goodness for that).

But he does not want Israel to strike Iran.  If anyone bombs, it should be us.  According to Graham:

I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran, and they're not aligned now. It's too much pressure to put on Israel.

Let's go down the sanction road, as my colleagues have indicated. Military action should be the last resort anyone looks at. And I would rather that our allies and us take military action if it's necessary.

In other words, an Israeli attack would rally the Arab world but an American attack would not. 

Graham doesn't want Israel to inflict a "nightmare on the world" because that would be "too much pressure to put on Israel."   But a third Middle East war would not be too much pressure on us?  Nice.