William Kristol Wants A Military Strike on Iran

And that ought not be a surprise, if you know that Kristol is just another warmongering neocon. So, predictably, this is the only solution he can come up with to end the rise of radical Islamism in the Middle East in his column 'It's Our War'.

For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

But such a military strike would take a while to organize. In the meantime, perhaps President Bush can fly from the silly G8 summit in St. Petersburg--a summit that will most likely convey a message of moral confusion and political indecision--to Jerusalem, the capital of a nation that stands with us, and is willing to fight with us, against our common enemies. This is our war, too.

Right. That will definitely fix everything, won't it Kristol?

You'd think he would have learned a thing or two from the neocons' misadventures in Iraq - which is now Terrorism Central in the Middle East.

Obviously not.

P.S.: Kristol, perhaps you've forgotten that Bush is not all that fond of the idea of calling Jerusalem Israel's 'capital' city.