It should be pointed out that while Iran (or forces within the Iranian government, depending on how you categorize Kuds et al) is indeed "meddling" in Iran, they are knowhere near a full-scale intervention. IED components and some advisers are one thing. Iran, however, has stocks of much more sophisticated/damaging equipment and could probably readily recruit 'volunteers' to use the stuff in Iraq. If you think Iraq is 'bleeding' now, just give the various insurgents supplies of modern anti-weapons and anti-aircraft missiles. IEDs may be a hassle, but portable weapons like Konkurs(Spandrel) can toast an armored vehicle from 4 kilometers. Latest generation SA-7 missiles could wreak havoc on our helicopter forces...and on and on and on. The Iranians may not be nice, but for whatever reasons they are showing some restraint.

"Those meddlesome Iranians!" Sounds like a neo-con channeling the Scooby Doo Show.

Yes, they are restraining their actions. However, why they are doing so is answered in the same way that the answer concerning what can be done about Iran is:

There have been presented a few options:

1. "Engage" Iran, and essentially ask/cajole them to be nicer.

Petraeus' testimony indicates that since the engagement of Iran, their meddling has only increased. The logical conclusion from these two facts (I'll admit that there may be others of which I'm not aware) is that they see said engagement as a sign of weakness, and that they need but press a little further and they'll reap a bountiful harvest at whatever negotiating table we sit down at. Thus, I would argue that this option is effectively off the table unless we just say "fuck it" and go home.

2. Patrol the Iran-Iraq-Syria border more carefully.

I'd be willing to bet that we're already doing this, so it's really not even worth mentioning.

3. Draft and declare war on Iran (I'm not saying stick around afterwards - the hell with those guys) or start shooting at them, which will probably end up with the same result.

People generally don't like the draft. Iran generally doesn't like bombs any more than we do. However, we have a lot more of them that we can throw from far away. No, Iran will try to avoid this last outcome just as much as we will. The difference is that Iran ultimately has more to lose from it, whereas we currently are losing more than the Iranians. The reader may notice that my statements in no way imply that by declaring war with Iran, we will lose less than now - however, we would in doing so make them wish for different days more than we would be.

I wouldn't be so certain about #3. While Iran probably doesn't "want" a war, they -- like the US -- will fight if they feel compelled. To begin with, I wouldn't underestimate the Iranian military. It is much larger and almost certainly more competent (and loyal) than Iraq -- and in some cases even has better weaponry. "Disbanding" the Iraqi army may have been a mistake on our part, but if we dared invade Iran there would be no "disband". They would make us follow them into the cities and the hills and root them out to about the last person. Recall the Iran-Iraq war was the largest since WWII, and the Iranians fought off Saddam at a time when he had much more sophisticated technology and the Iranians were at their most disorganized. Iran is not nearly as factionalized as Iraq. As a general rule, an attack on Iran will unite the nation against the attacker and we probably won't be able to divide and conquer as in Iran. Iran is almost 4 time larger and has almost twice the population of Iraq. Try controlling that.

Secondly, look how scared we are of the "stateless" and relatively small Al-Qaida group. If we truly blasted Iran they might decide they have nothing left to lose. You could see a wave of state-sponsored Muslim terrorism that makes everything we've seen look like kindergarten - and that is not even considering that most of the Muslim "street" around the world will fervently back Iran.

Finally, a lot of power in Iran is in the hands of the "ayatollahs". Many of them are indeed hardcore religionists who already feel under attack from the west. As far as they are concerned, a war might actually be a uniting force that would give them even greater power over Iran in order to enforce even more rigorously their hard-line views. They aren't as "backward" as the Taliban leaders were, but they'll take bombs and loss of electricity long before they allow a diminuation of Islam/Iran at the hands of the U.S.

Who would "lose" an Iran-US war? I think it is most likely that *both* sides would lose. Wars are often ignited by mistake or miscalculation even when leaders recognize their dangers, and they can be hard to stop even if disaster is onrushing -- we don't need another chapter added to "The March of Folly".

No...the US would lose, not both sides.

I'm about mad enough to spit at the mess Dubya has landed this country in, and despite being told not to five years ago. I don't want us in Iraq. But if we pull out, then it's Vietnam all over again, with a massive other-actor intervention from Iran. (A whole constellation of reasons why, ranging from economic gain to regional dominance to ideological drive.) What are we going to do? Go back in somehow and stop it? I don't think so, not after the nightmare of getting 130,000 men out, and leaving aside the chewed-up nature of our forces after four-plus years of hard combat. Bomb them out? We don't have enough bombs to do that, frankly. (No, we can't use nukes.) Get a "coalition" to clean it up? Please. (Incidentally, why do you think Putin's started acting like Ivan the Terrible recently? Because he knows we're overextended and can't do anything about it.)

So we end up with Iraq, one of the richest oil countries in the world, a puppet state firmly in the control of one of our most implacable enemies, an enemy who is now even harder to bluff or intimidate. We spend all our time frantically trying to protect our economy from collapse and trying to keep Israel from pushing the button.

Thanks so much Dubya!