Kimberly Kagan has a dossier on the acts of war (mostly by proxie) that Iran has been committing against the US for at least the past five years. We may not be at war with Iran, but they're certainly at war with us, regardless of how much many choose to ignore it.

[Update late morning]

Here's a book that seems timely: Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots Quest For Destruction.

So, there has been this drumming for a US attack against Iran in certain parts of the blogosphere, but it doesn't seem as intense as in the case of Iraq. It's not done with a lot of heart, kinda seems even lazy.
I don't think it will happen, nor will Iran probably do anything radically new to change the status.
Though who knows what happens in the US political sphere in a few years. It often mostly is about internal politics.

I think the word war is thrown around too casually.

I rather think our "tolerance" for acts of war has become too "casual".

Five years? Iran has been at war with us since 1979. Anybody who doubts that needs to rethink that 28 year history. When in all that time have we NOT been the Great Satan?

Just like dismantling the Iraqi government to gain some control over their politics and to end their support of radical Islam, we'll eventually have to take on Iran. Appeasement and hand wringing do not work when "the other guy" wants to wage war against you.

Yeah I know the litany, Iraq was no threat to the U.S., no WMDs, Saddam was being controlled by the No Fly Zone, American forces are spread too thin, the war costs too much, too many troops dying.

How many people might die and what's the future cost of ignoring Iran? Will they stand down, because we say we will change our policies toward them? Did Japan, Germany, the U.S.S.R., North Korea, North Viet Nam? For that matter, anyone seen the stuff Putin is saying? Russia is becoming a problem again.

Appeasement and looking the other way will NOT keep us safe. That strategy never has worked and it never will.

Five years? Iran has been at war with us since 1979.

That's why I wrote "at least." The dossier only covers the past five years.

Okay, I actually agree with the 1979 date.

The Arrow Air "crash" on Ronald Reagan's watch is very suspicious.

So, what is the strategy?

To clarify, I support ending mullah rule in Iran.

However, that geo-political puzzle is intertwined with Moscow and Beijing (and Paris, with Sarkozy seemingly more cooperative that Chirac). It is also inter-twined with our having 160,000 soldiers interspersed with Shia militias across Iraq.

Including Sadr's men. With the Mahdi Army in control of Basra smack dab on our supply lines.

The neo-con fantasy that a few JDAMs or even tac-nuke bunker busters is a wining scenario for the US appears to me to be delusional.

We haven't enough infantry to nation-build Iraq therefore we are woefully short on the infantry needed to nation-build Iraq AND Iran AND Syria.

I have advocated neither a "few" JDAMs nor nation building Iran/Syria.

Your strawman is falling apart Bill.

Despite his continual attempts at it, Bill has never gotten very good at building straw men.

Sigh. Where is Jason Bourne and his ilk when you need him? The appropriate response here is tit for tat, only with American resources the tats can be a lot bigger than the tits, so to speak.

Send secret agents in to randomly blow up mullahs in their Mercedes. Conduct continuous light sabotage of Iranian oil-fields, a pump wrecked here, a tank holed there, that kind of thing. Hire desperately poor Palestinians to do it, like everybody else. Jam their radios and TVs at random intervals. Sell them buggy software. (I recall a particularly lovely incident during the Cold War in which the US subtly sabotaged a piece of software the USSR had ordered for controlling a major pipeline. The resulting explosion damaged Soviet gas production for months, I believe.)

I mean, sheesh, if a rag-tag nation like Iran can be such a pest, imagine how much more of a pest the US could be if it really put its mind to it? Why screw around with being dignified and ponderous, when you can just get sneaky mean while keeping plausible deniability?

The end result is either (1) the mullahs find some other way to prop up their rule before their regime collapses in chaos, or (2) they freak out and declare full and open war, and then get nuked or whatever. Sounds like a can't-lose proposition to me.

Rather than straw men, I'd prefer that someone offer a strategy for taking on Iran other than yelling loudly and making blog posts.

Rather than straw men, I'd prefer that someone offer a strategy for taking on Iran other than yelling loudly and making blog posts.

And yet you make another straw man. Who here has been "yelling loudly"?

Bill, you should work on reading comprehension, and responding to what people actually write, rather than what the voices in your head are telling you that people write.

I didn't know that it was my responsibility to come up with an Iran strategy. If so, I'm not getting paid nearly enough.

Iran Strategy: comprehensive bombing campaign.

Happy Bill?

I also like Carl's underhanded approach.

OK Bill, you asked...

1) Seal the border between Iran and Iraq, and make it clear (both through public pronouncement and through direct action) that anything crossing the border will be considered a legitimate target of war. Rebasing some AMERICAN troops (this is one job where I agree that the Iraqi military is probably a poor choice, both due to mixed loyalties and a huge conflict of interest) to perform these tasks is something tht can be done very quickly.

2) Destroy Iranian Navy and RevGuards naval assets in toto, or as close to it as can be arranged. These should include (but not be limited to) ships and land based SSM launchers, as well as the radars that support them. At this time, a similar effort should be made against SAM sites, early warning radars, etc.

3) Use of (more than a few) JDAMs, etc. (NO nukes) to destroy surface facilities and support elements around every piece of the Iranian nuclear complex (many facilities) that we can identify. Mix these wtih multiple penetrators to destroy or damage (or at the very least degrade) what underground facilities do exist. Follow-up with VERY limited special forces insertions to kill anything that moves and destroy some more. Remember, we do NOT have to destroy every facility in its entirety...knock out thermal vents and air intakes on the surface and most of the facilities will become useless for some time.

4) Using similar techniques to (3), destroy radio/tv facilities used by the government (leave satellite facilities alone), as well as any C3I facilities used by the military in Iran. We won't get them all, but we will get many, probably most.

5) Using similar techniques from (3) and (4), knock out Iran's refining capability (it is all domestic use anyway), and follow-up with attacks on pipelines and tanker loading facilities. This will neatly cut off most (if not all) of Iran's internal energy resources, as well as their ability to gain income through oil sales.

6) Stop. Announce that we have finished (for the time being) and that if the Iranians wish to discuss a normalization of relations at this point, we are more than willing to do so, based upon their unconditional acceptance of a WMD-prevention regime similar to the one that Saddam agreed to following the First Gulf War, combined with an end to the activites (in toto) of the Revolutionary Guards. Make it clear that failing this, the US reserves unto itself the right to perform further strikes in the future. Add to this that the US has NO interests in Iranian territory, resources, or the future of its government, ONLY its behavior.

That's it. No occupation troops, no 'pottery barn' concerns, simply a very thorough spanking of a naughty child. If necessary, this can be repeated with rather considerable effect. Aside from the ritual pissing and moaning, I rather doubt that many of the kleptocracies in the region will object too strongly (remember that these folks loathe the Iranians more than the hate us, something of an achievement I think...), though I have little doubt that several of the usual suspects ( Russia and China ) might be more than a bit upset, though neither is likely to risk much more than behind the scenes aid.

Finally, as for 'not enough infantry'...Bill, that dog just won't hunt. No doubt we shouldn't wish for more drains on manpower, but there is plenty of infantry (as well as support units) sitting in Europe, South Korea, etc. Aside from a very small residual force to protect/support facilities in Europe and an airbase or two in the ROK, why do these troops need to be where there is no real need for them? 'No real need' does NOT include giving cushy berths to two-stars, which is the primary reason for the JCOS opposing their removal.

1) Seal the border between Iran and Iraq, and make it clear (both through public pronouncement and through direct action) that anything crossing the border will be considered a legitimate target of war.

No need to go any further than your first point. Tell us how we are simultaneously surging elsewhere in Iraq and producing the troops needed to seal the border.

Next, if you have any idea of the volume of trade between Iran and Iraq, tell us how the Iraqis are going to react to this. And, you know try to keep this consistent with our making friends with the Iraqis, converting them to democracy and the rest of the current story line that we are being fed.

TNT: Sealing the border does not require a huge troop deployment. The terrain (for the most part, their are exceptions) between Iran and Iraq is fairly flat and easily patrolled by light forces and UAVs, the very same forces that have been so successful in Anbar and elsewhere. As I noted a moment ago, there are some exceptions (some very rugged country in the north, and some truly nasty marshland in the south), but for the most part this will be the province of smugglers, who are already operating, and whose capability will only be reduced by a determined effort. Remember, simply slipping through the occasional group of poorly armed terrorists isn't going to cut it, there are plenty of those aready available. For the Iranians to do real damage (as they are doing now), they will have to move significant quantities of hardware across the border (as they do now), which will be much much more difficult when we are permitted to shoot at them. The strawman here (we cannot seal the border perfectly) is just that..a strawman...we don't seal it at all now...any impact we have will be a positive one.

On the subject of cross-border trade, actually it has declined quite a bit, though it remains high enough to be problematic. I wouldn't doubt tha the Iraqi govt (as well as many Iraqis) won't like the idea of their trade being disrupted, but it isn't likely that it will be for very long, and there are alternatives to it both internally and with other nearby countries (notably Kuwait and the Gulf States). Finally, while I fully endorse the idea that we must be willing to bend as far as possible to accomodate the Iraqi sensitivies here, the purpose of our involvement in Iraq in the first place is to further OUR national interests. By no possible set of contortions can one argue that permitting the Iranians to acquire a bomb, and to continue to commit acts of war against us (and the Iraqis, for that matter) is in our interests.

Scott got it dead on.

TnT,
if that border is secure there will be fewer new arms and jihadis coming into Iraq.

If Bush pulls from APEC, I'd give a 50:50 chance we're at war with Iran by the end of the month.