Good lord. Here’s Republican Senator Lindsey Graham speaking at AIPAC with his vision for the Middle East (war against Iran, killing Persians and loving Israel). Don’t tell me that Zionism hasn’t deformed public debate in America (via Mother Jones):
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) laid it on thick at AIPAC’s annual gala banquet on Monday. Referring to the pro-Israel lobby, Graham declared, “The Congress has your back.” (What other lobby would he say that to?) He declared that Israel is “our best friend in the world.” (Does that tick off Canadians?) But Graham went especially far when he endorsed the idea of a military strike against Iran.
The former Navy judge advocate told the thousands of AIPACers that when it comes to dealing with Iran and the possibility it will develop nuclear weapons, “all options must be on the table” and “you know exactly what I’m talking about.” He then made the obligatory comments, saying that war is a “terrible thing” and that he hoped it could be avoided. But added Graham, a member of the Senate armed services committee, “sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to develop a second time.” And he told the crowd that “time is not on our side” and that this AIPAC conference could be the last of the lobby’s annual get-togethers before Iran possesses nuclear weapons. Military action ought to be taken against Iran, he said, before the country acquires a nuclear bomb.
But Graham noted that any such military strike should not be limited to targeting the country’s nuclear program:
“If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion. The Iran government’s ability to wage conventional war against its neighbors and our troops in the region should not exist. They should not have one plane that can fly or one ship that can float.”
Graham was talking about a wide-scale attack on Iran—and one that might have take place within the next year. Destroying Iran’s military—which has about 130,000 regular soldiers and 14 air bases throughought the country—would entail a major assault, and it could trigger Iranian attacks… elsewhere in the region. It would be a rather good-sized war. But nothing less will suffice, Graham insisted. And the crowd applauded: