Is It an Act of War? 

Charlie Sykes asks the question after reading this article:

U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border....

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

Those who know me best will tell you without a second's thought that I love to play devil's advocate. So Charlie, let me ask you this. Way back during WWII, before Pearl Harbor, Congress (at the urging of President Roosevelt) passed The Lend-Lease Act. While remaining a neutral country, we provided weapons, ammunition, and food to the allied powers in their war against Germany.

By your criteria, was this an act of war against Germany, for which Germany was then justified in sinking American ships in the Atlantic? If Iran isn't exploding any of these weapons, but instead is merely providing them to someone else to explode, how is this any different from what we did for Britain?

Don't get me wrong. I think it's absolutely terrible that Iran is doing this. I think this is yet another example of a terrible act from a regime that needs to get wiped off the map. But saying that it's an act of war, not only says that we could invade Iran immediately in self defense, it almost obligates us to do so. So is it an act of war? Or is it merely an example of a totalitarian regime supporting it's own interests?

Like I said, I love playing devil's advocate.