It ends with a plea for a narrower policy ,-- to target "as a laser beam" Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. The bulk of the article argues against a wider policy, and in particular pleads not to target any nation that may happen to be Israel's direct enemy. How does it argue? Solely by noting that the proponents of the wider policy are neo conservatives.
A proper argument against any policy should discuss the merits of the policy, not political groupings. This one doesn't. That is the contradiction you don't see, between the stated support of the general policy and the content of he article.
If the United States invades Iraq, bombs Hezbollah and conducts strikes on Syria and Iran, this war will metastasize into a two-continent war from Algeria to Afghanistan, with the United States and Israel alone against a half-dozen Arab and Muslim states. The first casualties would be the moderate Arabs — Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states — who were our Cold War and Gulf War allies.
The war Netanyahu and the neo cons want, with the United States and Israel fighting all of the radical Islamic states, is the war bin Laden wants, the war his murderers hoped to ignite when they sent those airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.