Neo-conservatives are calling for unconditional United States support for Israel’s military offensives in Gaza and Lebanon and “regime change” in Syria and Iran, as well as possible US attacks on Tehran’s nuclear facilities in retaliation for its support of Hezbollah.

In a Weekly Standard column entitled “Our War”, editor William Kristol called Iran “the prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war” which, he argued, should be considered part of “the global struggle against radical Islamism.” He complained that Washington recently has done a “poor job of standing up and weakening Syria and Iran” and called on President George W Bush himself to fly directly from St Petersburg to Jerusalem.” “This is our war, too,” according to Kristol.

“All of us in the free world owe Israel an enormous thank-you for defending freedom, democracy, and security against the Iranian cat’s-paw wholly-owned terrorist subsidiaries Hezbollah and Hamas,” echoed Larry Kudlow, in the Standard’s right-wing competitor, The National Review.

The two columns are the examples of a slew of commentaries that have appeared in US media since Israel began bombing targets in Lebanon in retaliation for Hezbollah’s fatal cross-border attack last Wednesday. They appear to be part of a deliberate campaign by neo-conservatives to depict the current conflict as part of global struggle pitting Israel against Islamist extremism organised and directed by Iran and its junior partner, Syria.

This view was most dramatically expressed by former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” when he described the conflict as “the early stages of... the Third World War.”

“Iran’s Proxy War” blazed the cover of this week’s Standard, which also featured other articles underlining Iran’s sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas and the necessity of the US standing with Israel, if not taking independent action against Tehran and/or Damascus. A major theme of the new campaign is that the more-conciliatory “realist” policies toward Syria and Iran pursued by the State Department have actually backfired by making Washington look weak.

“They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago,” wrote Kristol. “Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak,” he said, adding, “the right response is renewed strength,” notably “in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran.”

In another article for the National Review, bluntly titled “Eradication First”, elaborated on that theme, arguing diplomacy in the current crisis will only be successful “if it commences both after the eradication of Hezbollah and Hamas.”

In yet another Weekly Standard article, titled “The Rogues Strike Back: Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah vs Israel”, Robert Satloff, executive director of the hawkish, pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argued that “defeat for Israel — either on the battlefield or via coerced compromises to achieve flawed ceasefires — is a defeat for US interests; it will inspire radicals of every stripe, release Iran and Syria to spread more mayhem inside Iraq, and make more likely our own eventual confrontation with this emboldened alliance of extremists.” — IPS