The Wall Street Journal is once again pushing for a strike on Iran to stop that country from obtaining nuclear weapons, even as national security experts warn that a strike on Iran would almost guarantee that Iran acquires nukes, the very thing the Journal is justifying war to prevent from happening.

Yesterday the Journal's editorial board published an editorial attacking the Obama administration for its position on Iran, pointing to recent comments by Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on that country's nuclear program as evidence that the administration is “send[ing] a message of weakness” by not warning Iran that they will be attacked if they pursue a nuclear weapon.

In an interview that aired on February 19, Dempsey, referring to possible Iranian response to a strike on its soil, told CNN's Fareed Zakaria, "[T]hat's the question with which we all wrestle, and the reason that we think that it's not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran," adding: "[T]hat's been our counsel to our allies, the Israelis, well-known, well-documented. And we also know -- or believe we know -- that the -- that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the effort to weaponize their nuclear capability."

Seizing on Dempsey's comments, the Journal wrote:

In a single sound bite, General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel's main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran, such attack isn't likely to work in any case, and the U.S. fears Iran's retaliation. It's as if General Dempsey wanted to ratify Iran's rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.

If the U.S. really wanted its diplomacy to work in lieu of force, it would say and do whatever it can to increase Iran's fear of an attack. It would say publicly that Israel must be able to protect itself and that it has the means to do so. America's top military officer in particular should say that if Iran escalates in response to an Israeli attack, the U.S. would have no choice but to intervene on behalf of its ally. The point of coercive diplomacy is to make an adversary understand that the costs of its bad behavior will be very, very high.

The Journal went on to argue that "[l]ike most of Mr. Obama's Iran policy, General Dempsey's comments will have the effect of making war more likely, not less," and concluded: “Weakness invites war, and General Dempsey has helped the Administration send a message of weakness to Israel and Iran.”

The Journal has been aggressive in its push for a military strike on Iran, and Journal writers have taken their campaign to Fox News. So it should come as no surprise that the Journal would use Dempsey's comments as an opportunity to continue to beat the drums of war.

Experts warn that an attack on Iran would all but guarantee the very thing they hope doesn't happen: Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Michael Hayden, director of the CIA during the Bush administration, has warned that an attack on Iran would “guarantee that which we are trying to prevent -- an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret.” Testifying before the Senate Appropriations committee in 2009, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates cautioned: “Even a military attack will only buy us time and send the programme deeper and more covert.”

In other words, the Journal is attacking the Obama administration for not threatening war to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, calling them “weak,” while supporting a military strike that would, according to experts, essentially guarantee that Iran obtains a nuclear weapon.