I know it's only Drudge
 

and I know it's only speculation at this point, but if, IF, this report is true...

"NBC NEWS confirms a secret U.S. military report that says 'Iranian Agents' may be behind a deadly ambush in Karbala, Iraq that left five American soldiers dead. The report also claims the Iranian revolutionary guard is providing intelligence on U.S. and Iraqi military to Shiite extremists, in addition to sophisticated weaponry. Developing... "

No matter what you think about the war, don't you have to respond 'in kind' to Iran?

Or at least tell Maliki he has to respond to Iran (if the report is true)? In this senerio, if Maliki fails to confront the Iranians, I say let's get out of Iraq by the end of next weekend.

It is not a shock or breaking news to anyone that Iran is helping the insurgents in Iraq. We should stay in Iraq and keep Iran surrounded. However, IF we stay in Iraq (which the outlook is not so hot right now) we should be sure to let our military fight to win. That means using air power which, while successful at achieving victory, will be costly in the end towards civilian lives.

Also: we should deal with Iran in a very clear, concise manner. No more summits or multi-party talks. In fact, no talks until their leadership takes a very different course. Also, the US should prepare to deal with Iran in a Clausewitz manner: remember war is a continuation of politics by other means.

Finally, we in the US need to prepare for what could be one of the darkest days in history. It is very negative, but we should prepare to pay whatever costs (that is economically, politically, or even militarily) to win this global conflict. However, the American public is not ready or willing to bear that burden.

Right, I agree. However, supplying insurgents with equipment and general support vs. directly giving them plans to kill US solders through a specific and defined mission are two very different things.

What are your proposals for carrots and sticks in dealing with Iran if we disengage diplomatically? Why would they care if we are not talking? I don't see much leverage that we have to encourage them to do things we want. That was one of the main drawbacks in going to Iraq IMO because the Iranians know that we are preoccupied with Iraq and that we are to bogged down to quickly respond to anything that they do.

As for invasion. Ai yi yi! Our poor military is beat down and overwhelmed with deployments and Iraq has only a third of the population of Iran, and much easier terrain. We could take out the regime obviously, but holding the place together and restoring something better would be at least 3 times as hard as Iraq.

If we treat it like a war and quit pussyfooting around, the US could defeat the insurgents very quickly. Ute4ever is correct that civilian deaths would be high, but we need to use air strikes and whatever means necessary to get things under control. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate thing, but in the end, more live will be saved when all the terrorists are dead.

As for Iran, if they really want to test the US, it would be very easy to flex our muscle and let them experience a nuclear winter. If they want to play hardball, we should show them how it's played. With Iran, the US needs to put to task the Cobra Kai method of striking first and striking hard. They want to develop a nuclear program and while I don't have proof of it, I have no doubt in my mind that they want to build nukes and use them on the US and any other western culture that doesn't think the way they do.

Some will think me a war monger, but my idea of peace is letting those that would harm me, my family, my friends and my country that if they want to push it, they will die.

I'm not suggesting a full invasion of Iran at this point. Precision bombing of certain areas to crimple their economy or their war-making capacity would be a beginning. I know that sounds harsh, but that is what war is, and I am not the one making these decisions.

Also, while our military is wearing down, and a full scale invasion at this point seems unlikely, Iran has a few things Iraq doesnt. The chances of sectarian violence following a military engagement is much smaller considering the breakdown of their population. Also, their population is much more westernized, and in fact there is a large dissent within the population who are pro-western (more so than many in Iraq). Especially among the highly educated. Finally, Iran tends to have overall a more educated population and a bureaucracy and infrastructure in place already which is able to run the country. These two things would seem to make a regime change easier than Iraq.

Overall, your point is well taken. The US strategy in that region has been mixed messages since at least 1980. I think what will actually happen is Iran will get nuclear weapons (assuming they dont have them already). Following that, it's a whole new ball game.