Whose side is Bill Kristol on?

Bill Kristol’s latest is a typical exercise in casuistry:

The huge challenge for the Obama administration is going to be Iran. If Israel had yielded to Hamas and refrained from using force to stop terror attacks, it would have been a victory for Iran. If Israel were now to withdraw under pressure without accomplishing the objectives of severely weakening Hamas and preventing the reconstitution of a terror-exporting state in Gaza, [author’s note: Wow that’s slippery. He’s like a well-oiled machine, isn’t he? He doesn’t defend the action itself, because of course we’re past that now] it would be a triumph for Iran. In either case, the Iranian regime would be emboldened, and less susceptible to the pressure from the Obama administration to stop its nuclear program.

But a defeat of Hamas in Gaza — following on the heels of our success in Iraq — would be a real setback for Iran. It would make it easier to assemble regional and international coalitions to pressure Iran. It might positively affect the Iranian elections in June. It might make the Iranian regime more amenable to dealing.

It’s hard to imagine a more backward analysis. I’m glad to know Bill is still so upbeat about our success in Iraq being a setback for Iran, but where does he think Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki took refuge in the Baathist years? Washington? London? Tehran.

And one thing we can be sure the Gaza war will accomplish is that it will strengthen the Iranian/Syrian faction, which will accuse our moderate Arab allies of acquiescing to the continued immiseration of the Palestinians. The war will thus pay dividends to the most extreme political opposition groups in the region, and direct Arab rage at Israel rather than Iran.