Kristol Is Pushing For ‘The Next World War’

Think Progress
October 14, 2007

On Fox News Sunday, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol continued to beat the war drums for a strike against Iran. “I hope the administration is willing to do what it takes to back Iran off,” he said, adding that “we may need to do stuff across the border.”

NPR’s Mara Liasson claimed that the Bush administration could politically “withstand” an attack against Iran, and that a bombing raid inside Iran would not count as “an all-out war.”

NPR’s Juan Williams noted that Liasson and Kristol were in effect condoning “the next world war”:

WILLIAMS: I think what Bill Kristol is saying is he wants some action against Iran in a way that Israel apparently took action against Syria. And I think what you’re looking at then is the next world war. […]

And if we now say the U.S. is going to take action against Iran, and it’s not as a result of some specific provocative action, then you’re talking about spreading war.

Kristol responded by citing the recent Israeli airstrike on Syria as evidence for his claim that a strike on Iran would not have deeper consequences. “Has the Israeli action against Syria spread war? Has that destabilized the region?” Kristol asked. Watch it:

Last year, Williams told Kristol: “You just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. ”

Neither Liasson nor Kristol should fool themselves about the consequences of striking Iran. Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recently said “that Iran would likely react to an American attack ‘by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.’”

Transcript:

KRISTOL: And Dave Petraeus and Ryan Crocker understand exactly that, and they are pursuing a very sophisticated political-military strategy of classic counterinsurgency. But Charles is absolutely right. It requires security.

You cannot get people to invest politically until they feel that we’re not going to betray them and they’re not going to be left in the mercies of Al Qaida on the one hand or Iranian-backed militias on the other.

That’s why the one thing — the only thing I now think that stands in the way of success is Iran, and I’m worried — General Petraeus is clearly alarmed by the degree of Iranian support, training, weapons providing, to the extreme Shia militias, to the extreme elements, the special elements, Jaish al Mahdi.

I hope the administration is willing to do what it takes to back Iran off. I think if the Bush administration does that, we’ll be…

HUME: Well, that’s the question. What will that take?

KRISTOL: Well, I think we’ve warned them. We’re being very aggressive against them in the country.

We have not done anything across the — we have not succeeded in getting them, apparently, to slow down the flow of advanced arms or the training of Iraqis in Iran, which is doing real damage to U.S. forces and which makes it harder for the Shia to do exactly what Charles is talking about…

HUME: What would happen…

KRISTOL: … to flip over to our side. We may need to do stuff across the border.

HUME: What would happen, Mara, in your judgment politically if the administration took action against Iran inside Iran?

LIASSON: I think it would depend on what kind of action. I mean, I think it would…

HUME: Well, sent a bombing raid on a training camp.

LIASSON: A bombing raid on a training camp?

HUME: Or a series of them.

LIASSON: I think it could withstand that. I think the that the Democrats — there would be some calls that this is war and you needed congressional approval. There would certainly be that.

But I think that if it was limited, if it wasn’t kind of an all- out war with Iran…

HUME: So you don’t think all hell would break loose.

LIASSON: No. I think there would be…

HUME: What do you think, Juan?

LIASSON: There would be criticisms, but, no, I think that…

WILLIAMS: I think what Bill Kristol is saying is he wants some action against Iran in a way that Israel apparently took action against Syria. And I think what you’re looking at then is the next world war.

LIASSON: That’s kind of different. Oh, striking nuclear facilities? I thought we’re talking about just training camps…

WILLIAMS: Well, no, but that’s what happened with Israel and Syria. And if we now say the U.S. is going to take action against Iran, and it’s not as a result of some specific provocative action, then you’re talking about spreading war.

KRISTOL: Has the Israeli action against Syria spread war? Has that destabilized the region?