Don't widen war.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose transformation into a neocon Republican is virtually complete, on Sunday joined Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John McCain in a resounding chorus of McCain's Beach Boys knockoff, "Bomb, bomb Iran."

On the heels of the first diplomatic meeting between the United States and Iran in almost three decades, Lieberman chose to bare his war hawk talons to CBS host Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation":

"I think we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,' Lieberman said.

The canny Schieffer, who knew his guest had just cranked the official belligerence meter up several notches, wanted to make sure his viewers understood what Lieberman was saying. `Let's just stop right there," Schieffer said. "Because I think you probably made some news here, Senator Lieberman. You're saying that if the Iranians don't let up, that the United States should take military action?'

`I am,' Lieberman responded.

That should put to rest any remaining doubts about how far to the right Lieberman has traveled since becoming the Democratic Party's vice presidential nominee in 2000. The four-term Connecticut senator was elected as an independent in 2006 after losing the state's Democratic primary.

Lieberman tempered his saber rattling with the standard disclaimers, insisting that he wasn't calling for an end to diplomacy with Tehran. But his emphasis clearly was on the Bush doctrine when he added that if the United States refuses to use force against Iran, `they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part, and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home.'

All together now: If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here.

What's next, a United Nations Security Council briefing by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice making the case that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents? Which insurgents would these be? Sunnis? Iran is a predominantly Shiite nation. Al-Qaeda? If anything, Iran would consider al-Qaeda a threat.

Is Iran supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents in the hope that they'll continue to inflict heavy losses on U.S. troops and force an American withdrawal?

It would be easier, particularly in light of the Lieberman-Cheney "send in the bombers" refrain, to make a case that Iran's best interests are served by a continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq. A United States that's up to its eyeballs in a military stalemate in Iraq would be less likely to turn its attention to Iran.

It's a given that Iran doesn't have the best interests of the United States or Iraq at the top of its priorities. Iran is looking out for Iran, and that means it has multiple motives and strategies in play in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. That's exactly the approach the United States is taking in the region.

Nothing the United States has done or is doing in Iraq has been successful. Every top general, including the current commander, Gen. David Petraeus, insists that there is no long-term military solution in Iraq.

Lieberman's suggestion that such a solution exists just across the border in Iran is irresponsible and moves the nation father from the day that American troops will no longer die needlessly in Iraq.