Pillory the American official who deigns to be so brazen as to state that it might be necessary to attack a country that is complicit in killing American soldiers and our allies. That appeared to be the response of many to Senator Lieberman raising the possibility of an attack on Iran Sunday on “Face the Nation.”

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Mr. Lieberman said. “That would include a strike…over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.” Mr. Lieberman, notably, introduced only the possibility of limited military action, saying “I want to make clear I’m not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran.”

Mr. Lieberman’s comments met with immediate derision on “Face the Nation.” “We have a not insignificant small problem on our hands already called Iraq where we are kind of bogged down, and we have Afghanistan on our hands…We’re taking on a really big problem if we go striking Iran,” scoffed Colbert King of the Washington Post. “I can’t think of anything worse than announcing in advance your military strikes,” added Roger Simon of Politico.com.

On much of the web, the reaction was, as to be expected, even more heated. “Talk like this will definitely help reduce tensions in the region,” mocked DAVIDNYC in a post on the DailyKos.

Mark27, filing a “diary” on the same site, used Mr. Lieberman’s comment as a chance to express regret, a “mea culpa” as he put it, for failing to recognize the Connecticut senator as “a cancer within the Democratic Party” last year when he faced an electoral challenge from businessman Ned Lamont. Joshua Micah Marshall of the Talking Points Memo wrote “just when it seemed Joe Lieberman’s neocon qualities couldn’t get any more offensive, he manages to kick things up a notch.”

Mr. Lieberman’s critics take his strong words in the most nefarious light. One can hardly discuss a military option without being labeled a “warmonger” these days. As it is, a Google search of the words “Lieberman Warmonger” turns up 43,500 links. But his opponents neglect a significant question: what is a senator of good conscience supposed to do when faced with a compelling array of evidence of Iranian adventurism from Gaza to Lebanon to Iraq to Afghanistan?

Further, few questioned his evidence: Iran’s role in training fighters in Iraq, Iran’s aiding Hezbollah, which is destabilizing Lebanon and threatening Israel, Hamas battling Fatah and threatening Israeli areas bordering Gaza. To these can be added recent reports that NATO forces have detected Iranians bringing explosive materials into Afghanistan. All of these actions are not equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor yet, perhaps, but, taken together, they suggest a regional effort by Iran to destabilize the Middle East.

It may well be that the American military leadership believes it is incapable of a winnable action against Iran. Remember it fell to the prospective chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, who is said to favor “engagement” with Iran, to declare in April “there is no plan for an attack on Iran.” It is also likely true that the American public is entirely exhausted from the more than four years of war in Iraq.

None of that, unfortunately, makes the danger of Iran disappear. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still the president of Iran. The Islamic Republic’s commitment to developing nuclear weapons is strong. Clearly, something must be done. Some leaders, such as Senator Clinton, speaking at last week’s Democratic debate, said she supported a “process of engagement” with Iran. Senator Edwards suggested driving “a wedge between the Iranian people and this radical leader.”

Others, such as Senator Biden, partook of what is one of the most popular strategies vis-à-vis Iran these days, wishful thinking: “Understand how weak Iran is. They are not a year away or two years away. They’re a decade away from being able to weaponize … put a nuclear weapon on top of a missile that can strike.”

Mr. Lieberman publicly raised the possibility of another potential American action. It’s to be expected that his controversial suggestion would be met, initially, with resistance. Yet ridicule? Mr. Lieberman is thinking through a tough answer to a very difficult problem. It might not make him popular in Democratic circles the way his 2000 run for the vice presidency did. But it’s a senator’s job to think about problems before they completely get out of hand. If that is cause for mockery, so be it.

Mr. Gitell, www.gitell.com, is a contributing editor of the Sun.