Earlier this week, the Bush administration ratcheted up its rhetoric towards Iran, imposing unilateral sanctions that are considered the “broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since 1979.” The White House also requested $88 million to equip B-2 “stealth” bombers with a new 30,000-pound bunker buster, which is being seen by members of Congress as a “sign of plans for an attack on Iran.”
On Fox News Sunday today, Fox’s Brit Hume and the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol enthusiasticly endorsed the new pro-war posturing, calling it “useful for Iran to believe that this administration will stop at nothing to keep it from getting a nuclear weapon.”
Hume claimed that it “make[s] sense” to threaten Iran with “a devastating military strike,” adding that Iran probably wants Democrats to be “in charge” because they look “terribly weak” in criticizing the “alleged saber rattling”:
Doesn’t it make sense that you want Iran to believe that if you keep this up, they might be the subject of a devastating military strike of the kind that only the United States of America can mount. I would think so. And it seems to me when you have Democrats running around, wringing their hands about alleged saber rattling that it makes them look terribly weak, and in the end if you’re the head of Iran, you think, “well, we want those people in charge.”
Discussing the bunker buster, Kristol said it was “ludicrous” and “ridiculous” for the administration to explain why it wants the new bomb because “there might be others that we want to bomb, not just in Iran.” Watch it:
Hume and Kristol’s bellicose rhetoric is actually counterproductive to finding a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The increasing talk of bombing Iran is thwarting U.N. efforts to forge international consensus, as other nations worry their vote could be “exploited” to support military action. The inability to find common ground then precipitates unilateral actions by the U.S. and sets the stage for military confrontation.