Billy Kristol's answer. Bomb Iran. A bad idea?

So, let's just assume that Hizbollah and Iran really want the destruction of Israel and generally a turn to Shia Islamic Governments. Let's also assume that Israel is one of these liberal regimes that believe in Enlightenment values. I want to ask you guys, why isn't Kristol right?

[snip]
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.
[snip]

Here's a brief typology of the sort of arguments one might make off the top of my head:

1. The pacifist argument: War is never the answer
2. The non-pacifist moral argument: Bombing will kill innocent civilians that have nothing to do with the threat to enlightenment values, the threat to people, etc.
3. The strategic argument: Bombing Iran will quickly create a situation in which Iran feels it has nothing to lose and lashes out at Israel and invades/destabalizes Iraq. Or some such scenario in which the region is embroiled in a war that makes the current situation look great.
4. The long-term moral/strategic argument: Continuing the pattern of US 'hard' power as the answer to problems (whether the US's or someone else's) will only frustrate attempts to create a just world society.

Do these arguments even collectively answer Kristol (or some position like it)? This is the fundamental foreign policy program of the neo-cons. I'm throwing this out here, because I think it is important that we get clear on why this ideology is wrong with reference to a specific case.