Act of War or Just Another Crime?

In a piece for OpinionJournal.com, former FBI director Louis Freeh lays recounts his experience heading up the investigation into the bombing of the Khobar Towers in 1996. Prior to reading this piece I was 95% certain that Iran had had a hand in the attack. Now I'm absolutely certain they were responsible for it. The men who carried out the attack were acting as surrogates of the Iranian government, which ordered the attack and provided training and funds for the attack. This was an act of war by the government of Iran against the United States. There are simply no two ways about it. So why are the Mullahs still in power in Iran? Why were they not overthrown in 1979, when the American embassy was seized (another act of war)? Or when Hezbollah (Iran's terrorist group) bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983? Why haven't their military meddlings in Iraq (providing weapons and funds to insurgents, among other things) invited swift and severe reprisals? Why do we choose to ignore what is in front of our face and seek a diplomatic solution with an enemy for whom the only acceptable diplomatic solution is our complete surrender with some economic benefits thrown in for good measure?

Now, I'm not necessarily advocating going to war with Iran, but it looks more and more to me like that's what it's going to take, and if that's what it's going to take, the United States is going to have to be the major force taking care of business, largely because both theoretically and practically we're the only ones who can. Britain and Australia would come with us, I think. I could also see Poland and some of the other smaller members of the Iraq coalition joining in as well. Heck, I could even see Canada getting involved now that they've got a decent Prime Minister who seems to understand that concrete action accomplishes more than endless, vacuous negotiation.

As I've said before, I don't think invading Iran and overthrowing the Mullahs is necessarily the answer, but in order for any of the other alternatives (either a reasonable diplomatic resolution or revolution from within) to be successful, the legitimate threat of force has to present. The United States doesn't have to be overly belligerent or bellicose, but it does have to make clear that failure to reach an acceptable solution will result in the demise of the current Iranian regime. The Iranians have no reservations about waging war against us. It's about time we changed that.