HARDBALL: Webb's interview yesterday regarding Kyl-Lieberman and Condi's unilateral Iran sanctions

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

The Bush administration slapped new sanction against Iran‘s Revolutionary Guard today, marking the first time in history that the United States has taken such steps against the armed forces of another country. Will this pave the way for war with Iran?

Senator Jim Webb of Virginia sits on the Armed Services and the Foreign Relations Committee. He‘s also former secretary of the Navy.

Senator, thank you for joining us.

What is this all about, this new talk about acting against Iran? Is this to avoid a war or to make one?

SEN. JIM WEBB (D), VIRGINIA: Well, I think the problem is that we have so many balls in the air, in terms of the rhetoric that‘s flying back and forth, that we need some protection against unintended consequences or, perhaps, intended consequences from some people in the administration.

And that‘s why I introduced a bill last March that would say that the administration cannot take unilateral action against Iran, absent a couple of very specific circumstances, unless it comes to the Congress again.

MATTHEWS: But the president hasn‘t—you haven‘t passed that in both houses...

WEBB: No.

MATTHEWS: ... and the president hasn‘t signed it. So, can‘t he say, “Nice try, Senator Webb; I still have the power”?

WEBB: Well, here we are. And, you know, I‘m saying that because we‘re going to make another push on this starting very soon, because where you are right now is, we have—they didn‘t go quite as far in this declaration today that they did in this Kyl/Lieberman amendment that passed the Senate, which called the Iranian Guards an actual foreign terrorist organization, but they came very close.

And, so, we really need some definitions here between the legislative and executive branch priorities. And the bill is one way to get there. And we‘re hoping we can get there.

MATTHEWS: Well, are Lieberman and Kyl carrying water for the administration, for the hawks inside the administration? Why are they passing bills like this?

WEBB: I don‘t think there‘s any doubt about that. And I think that what we have to really sit down and figure out is, behind this announcement today, which had a strange term, specially designated, global terrorists, as opposed to foreign terrorist organizations, there is the potential for some very significant movement by this administration.

They were saying today this is the most significant movement from the United States toward Iran in 28 years. And they‘re doing it sort of unilaterally, and what we need to make very clear is that there are certain things that a country like ours should be able to do, in terms of sanction, that are defensive and proper, but there are others that might be taking place that are designed to mask potential offensive operations. And that‘s where the Congress has to step in.

MATTHEWS: Well, you know, the people who pushed for war with Iraq had a wonderful method, which was to get people to agree in principle, when it didn‘t matter, in terms of operations, that we needed to go to war, and then get us to follow up on our agreement in principle.

MATTHEWS: So they had something called the Iraqi Liberation Act, which had no real military component to it, no actionable part. And now they keep going back after that and saying, oh, you signed on to that; you must be for war. Bill Clinton signed that. He must be for war.

WEBB: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: And here they are again trying to get the resolutions through. It looks to me like they love these promissory notes. They get people to sign in principle, and then they come back and say, where‘s the war? You promised me a war.

WEBB: Well, it‘s actually—it‘s called getting people on the record. I think that people over here got maneuvered an issue at a time, just as you mentioned, before the war in Iraq, so that, by the time the actual vote came, they were boxed in so that they had to vote for it.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

WEBB: And a lot of that is going on right now. The Kyl/Lieberman amendment‘s a classic example. If you look at the vote on that, even though more than 70 senators voted in favor of it, the top six senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, the two ranking Republicans and the four ranking Democrats, all voted against it.

So, the people who have long experience in foreign policy can see this sort of thing coming, and the others kind of go along with the motion of the moment. And they need to take a lot closer at the language of what‘s coming this way.

MATTHEWS: What‘s the story on Kyl and Lieberman?

Let‘s start with Kyl. He seems to be very much in bed with the administration‘s most hawkish elements. He seems like he just does what they want him to do.

If they say, let‘s get ready; let‘s get ready for a war, he goes out and he gets a resolution passed.

We know Joe Lieberman—and I give him credit for this. He is what he says he is, a real down-the-line hawk when it comes to the Middle East and elsewhere.

Is that what they‘re up to, just arming the Senate and the country with language that can be used, six months or five months from now, to go to war?

WEBB: Well, there are different theories on how to bring Iran into either the international community or to change the regime there. And I don‘t believe that we‘re going to get there without engaging them in a very aggressive way diplomatically.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

WEBB: And we can get there.

MATTHEWS: Yes, but these guys...

(CROSSTALK)

WEBB: And I think we got there with China in 1971.

MATTHEWS: But Kyl and Lieberman are not diplomats. They‘re hawks.

WEBB: Well, the Cheney element of the administration is well represented in the United States Senate.

MATTHEWS: Well said.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Jim Webb, who‘s leading the way in the Democratic Party. He‘s one Democratic senator who remembers the election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21490511/