You know, there was a time in the British Empire that this would be considered an act of war:

The Sunday Telegraph revealed in April that Iranian-made de-vices employing several EFPs, directed at different angles, were being used in Iraq.

And in June, this newspaper obtained the first picture of one of the Iraqi insurgent weapons - designed to fire an armour-piercing EFP - believed to have been responsible for the deaths of 17 British soldiers.

Apparently, for all the talk of the "war mongers" Bush and Blair, war (or at least waging a war that one is actually in, like it or not) has gone out of fashion in the west. And the Iranians and Syrians are taking full advantage of that fact.

"Apparently, for all the talk of the "war mongers" Bush and Blair, war (or at least waging a war that one is actually in, like it or not) has gone out of fashion in the west."

That's called sanity. People who aren't psychotic don't go around seeking wars to fight.

"And the Iranians and Syrians are taking full advantage of that fact."

What "advantage" is there in the position of Iran and Syria? They are economically irrelevant to the world, diplomatically isolated, militarily weak even compared to Israel, and express their bitterness by funding proxies.

It's not sanity, it is overusing a term until it is meaningless. It may be wise to avoid war with iran over the incident but that doesn't mean calling them warmongers while giving iran and company a pass is anything but imbicilish.

If the useful idiots had actually shut up, I'm not suggesting they actually sided with western civilization, but instead a silent neutrality, there would be bite to the threat of action against Iran that is not there after five years of constant crying and handwringing and attempts to sabotage political administrations.

Iran is hardly economically irrelevant to the world. I shudder to think about gas prices if Iran decided to suddenly stop shipping oil around the world.

X, gas prices actually wouldn't be too bad. (And, compared to Tehran getting nukes, it would be a small price to pay... not that I think it would help.) The price of oil would go up, but probably not more than $20 a barrel or so. The interesting thing is that it would probably be very hard on Iran. Perhaps much harder on them than on us.

While they export a lot of oil, they use a large amount of subsidized gas, too, and their refining capacity is way less than they require. They therefore import refined gasoline from their neighbors at almost-market prices, and sell it subsidized for something like $0.05/gallon. (That number has been changing recently... they have been trying this summer to increase both their refining capacity and the subsidized price, fully aware of the danger that the combination presents.) Combine those two factors with their large budget deficit, and the fact that, while they export a lot of oil, it's a small fraction of world supply, and it looks actually really, really easy to turn the screws hard on Iran: just embargo their oil exports.

Economically irrelevant? Zwuh? Double-zwuh with interrobang when you consider their ability to threaten interdiction of shipping lanes.

Diplomatically isolated? You mean the way that the EU-3, Russia, and China constantly snub them?

Militarily weak compared to Israel? Yes, until they get nukes. Think that'll make any difference?

Express their bitterness by funding proxies? By the Arab/Persian modern world's standards, they just won a political victory, possibly the biggest in 50 years, using those proxies. Who cares what the military result was if the political result was still favorable?

What am I missing here?

"when you consider their ability to threaten interdiction of shipping lanes."

What shipping lanes could they "interdict," and how would they stop the US from annihilating their ships, docks, and missile installations within days? Do you believe they would threaten Israel with a handful of nukes that would result in their own total destruction if launched? All these scenarios depend on Iranians being subhumanly stupid, which makes one wonder how they overthrow our puppet in the first place.

"Militarily weak compared to Israel? Yes, until they get nukes."

Only Iran has the potential for nuclear weapons, and even then it would still be weaker than Israel by orders of magnitude economically, technologically, and logistically. There are no "advantages" for Iran to exploit, let alone Syria, and talking about Iran's third-world army like some kind of wermacht poised to storm the region is utterly preposterous.

"By the Arab/Persian modern world's standards, they just won a political victory, possibly the biggest in 50 years, using those proxies."

Insofar as Israel blundered by invading Lebanon in the first place, but the real damage it suffered had nothing to do with anything Hezbollah did. This whole situation was self-inflicted: Hezbollah dangled the bait, and Israel obligingly took it without any apparent forethought. However, be that as it may, none of these proceedings have increased the power of Iran one iota--all they've done is provoke Israel into embarrassing itself, which means precisely dick.

"Who cares what the military result was if the political result was still favorable?"

As long as they keep thinking like that, we have absolutely nothing to worry about.

How about the Strait of Hormuz? If anyone thinks Iran won't try to get a nuke into Israel if/when they have one you're as nuts as the government of Iran. How big would they be in the Arab world if they use those proxies to blow up any city in Israel? How do they respond to a "terrorist attack"? Do you think the rest of the world will want them responding in kind? Do you have any idea how heavy the pressure would be for them not to launch? So far, you're ignoring the reality on the ground. The only condemnation is for Israel. Hizbollah seems to be getting a pass, thanks to media outlets like the New York Times and the BBC. Also, the Israeli army no longer appears invincible. Everyone wants to back a winner. The more Iran seems to be rubbing the Wests' face in it, the more support they garner in the Arab street, whether it's Cairo or Dearborn.

The principals for going to war are certainly changing. We don't go to war for attacks on soldiers, military outpost, or bombing of an embassy. Therefore, its not surprising that we don't go to war against countries that supply the enemy with armament.

Apparently, the only time war is justified is after civilians are attacked. Even then, attacks on commuter systems are not sufficient. War like attacks must include modes of transportation combined with civilian office spaces. Then, it is acceptable to have a limited war with one country only.

The next change is that if an enemy enters a war by proxy, then the US must honor the proxy and only fight against the proxy. Further, if the country that attacks a Western power doesn't meet some litmus test on military strentgh, diplomatic prowess, and financial stability; then war with that country is unacceptable.

What shipping lanes could they "interdict," and how would they stop the US from annihilating their ships, docks, and missile installations within days?

How many missiles does Hezbollah still retain? Are we (the US) that much more capable than Isreal?

I do not doubt the evil of the mullahs, yet I I know see a rush to start setting screws with hammers.

We should at the very least take out those three factories building the shaped charges.

Cecil, the weapons pipeline actually leads to Russia and China

Brig James Dutton, then the commander of British forces in southern Iraq, revealed last November that EFPs had led to a marked increase in the lethality of attacks. He said the "technology certainly, and probably the equipment is coming through Iran". He added: "They come in various grades, these EFP improvised explosive devices, from those that could be made in a relatively simple workshop to those that would require a reasonably sophisticated factory."

Okay then. We know where its coming from. We know where they've been used. What would be your suggestion Brian? Pull out all the troops so they don't get killed?

there was a time in the British Empire that this would be considered an act of war

I had a guy who works for me over from the US a couple of weeks ago. He's American of Korean ancestory and this was his first trip to the UK. He couldn't understand why, if we had an empire, that we'd not got more money now.

A few of us, including a former Marine officer, had to point out that the problem with wars is they're expensive and you tend to get into bad habits when you're the undisputed top dog.

The later part of the 19th century were littered with really really dumb wars that the British went for because some idiot thought that something represented an act of war. Our last escapade in Afganistan is in there, fighting to keep the drugs trade open, the Boer War (a really nasty example of how an imperial conflict can be screwed up)...

So, we should declare war on countries who have supplied equipment that has killed our soliders who are on the ground in a country where, according to our Attorney General, we entered illegally?

Super.

Apparently your Attorney General doesn't know what he's talking about. Otherwise, why do they remain?

Bill, I know that Russia and China are Iran's primary arms suppliers but I don’t see what that link has to do with this particular instance. Maybe the design came from Russia or China, even if it did it would be hard to prove that it was provided with the complicity of the Russian/Chinese governments. But we do know, to some degree of certainty, that shaped charged weapons are being manufactured in Tehran for use in Iraq. If the degree of certainty is high enough and we know where those factories are we should target them post haste.

Cecil, can we at least deploy our aircraft carriers to the Arabian Sea, first? ;-)

Tackling Iran won't be a cakewalk. Not least because of the possibility that Shia Iraq has been infiltrated by Hezbollah cells and potential plans made by Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz. If I were a mad mullah and the US attacked, I'd launch my missiles at Saudi oil facilities.

Therefore, Iranian missile sites need to be targeted within the opening hours of any war. If we choose to tackle Iran, I would want overwhelming firepower deployed in advance.

Do not re-run the IDF's failed strategy in Lebanon, bomb the bleep out of some infrastructure and then attempt to declare victory. Do not send an F-16 to do a paratrooper's job.

I'm not talking about the wider Iran problem, the nuclear facilities. I am only talking about these three factories that are supplying roadside bombs to insurgents in Iraq. Don't confuse the two.

Take them out now, if there is no attack sub with SLCM in range B-1's or B-52's with ALCM can be in firing range within 24 hours of the order being given.

Have B-2's at Whiteman and Diego Garcia (if any are there now) ready to strike other Iranian targets if Iran launches anything toward a neighbor.

If nothing else it would send a signal that we are serious. That is, if indeed we are. There hasn't been much evidence to support that recently.

Turn about is fair play.

Start an insurgency in Iran, give them the captured Iranina IED's and let them stick one on Amadeanajads motorcade route.

It's easy to talk about starting wars.
It's even easy to start wars.

It's hard to talk about ending wars
and it's very hard to fight them.

To pacify Iraq we need a million more men, to
pacify Iran we need 3 million more soldiers.

Apparently your Attorney General doesn't know what he's talking about.

Well, I'm glad you've settled that one. Thank you, I'll email the government. Looking for a job?

Otherwise, why do they remain?

According to the AG, in a ruling used in the prosecution of a service doctor who refused to go back to Iraq. While the original invasion was illegal under international law, the troops are now there at the invitation of a legitimate government.

While the original invasion was illegal under international law, the troops are now there at the invitation of a legitimate government.

Wow, 2 wrongs do make a right! Saddam violated international law. Bush and Blair violated international law. The result is a legitimate government. That's settled.

> To pacify Iraq we need a million more men, to
pacify Iran we need 3 million more soldiers.

Iran can be made irrelevant without pacifying it.

It's amazing how few of the "peace" folks realize that the alternatives to our current actions are far worse for our opponents. Either that or they actually prefer the worse alternatives. (Given that said folks tend to be very supportive of murderous thugs, that preference is a possibility.)

The result is a legitimate government. That's settled.

I must admit it did make me chuckle at the irony.