An Iranian American Conflict was something. . . .

I didn't anticipate having as a category here, but I do now.

It shouldn't have come about this point.

Or at least so it seems.

Let's be clear about that, however.  Iran has been colliding violently with the entire globe since it became a Shia Islamic Republic in the 1970s.  It's a radical theocracy that's bent on spreading its branch of Islam by any means necessary.  It's subverted much of the current Iraqi government and it's sponsored anti government forces in Lebanon.  It's also propped up the government of Syria.  It maintains militias in Iraq. 

There's nothing about the current government of Iran that we can admire, and we also can't admire its lending of its guerrilla commanders, or volunteers, to forces outside of its border.  Indeed, in its behavior, we might compare to Fascist Italy in the 1930s, which propped up the fascist cause elsewhere and which lent volunteers to the civil war in Spain.

We've been contesting Iran's efforts now for forty years.

But over those forty years domestic support for the country's theocracy has waned and was disappearing.  We've managed to temporarily reverse that now almost over night.

In doing that, we've removed a single Revolutionary Guard commander, but that's not going to change the success rate of Iran's foreign adventures in any fashion.  On the weekend news shows the Administration's line was that "America's safer", but that seems rather far fetched.  Indeed, in taking out a single man we've violated, once again, the Clausewitzian maxim that if you hit a foreign power, you have to go all in.  We haven't done that, and there's no sign we will.  Indeed, at this point that would be an extraordinary action that Congress and the public would not support.

So a troubled Iranian government will see Iranians rally to it, and it will have to act in some fashion that will result in an increased loss of life.

Given this, at the present time, the Administration really should lay bare its reasons for taking this action.  If we see that Iran was planning something like 9/11 in some fashion, or something like the USS Cole, well, perhaps we can then understand why this seemed necessary.  Indeed, that would have effectively have been Iran taking the first step.  But in order to make this move wise strategically it would require something on that order.  If it isn't there, the public can judge if the use of force was wise or not.

It wouldn't be the first time that the public has made such calculations.  Indeed, far more American wars have been unpopular with the population than generally imagined, with the Mexican War perhaps being the most unpopular we've experienced to date. At any rate, it's not disloyal to want answers, and with wars they should be forthcoming.

Which is also not to say that this is going to become a full scale war.  Indeed, as noted, that's the Clausewitzian maxim we have violated.  Clausewitz warned that limited wars were wars by the weak and the risk they entail is extreme.  If we're in a war, it'll be a very low grade and long lasting one, not one that sees masses of men in the field. And its those low grade wars that we're the worst at fighting.