No, I don’t have a “magic plan”.
Do you disagree that attacking tankers in international waters is tantamount to an act of war? If it is an act of war, would we be justified on our own (or in concert with an ally whose shipping is attacked) to take appropriate measures?
Do you think there are any other strategic targets in Iran beyond a few guys in a cave with a missle? Or are you simply ruling out attacking anything other than guys in caves with Silkworm missiles?
Do you think harbors can be mined? Refineries disabled or destroyed? Nuclear facilities that can be threatened or attacked?
To be realistic, so many Americans including our leadership (and many on FR) have surrendered the concept of doing what is in our best interests, so I don’t have any illusions about what will happen.
When they cut off a large part of the oil supply to the world, and the enconomy, teetering on the edge, slides into full blown depression and chaos, is that not worth putting up a fight to defend? If it is, then you and I agree.
If it is not, “please let us know how that works”.
You are making the error, IMHO, of supposing normal, rational, Western thought processes on an Iranian leadership which is actually trying to bring on their own Shiite version of the End Times. Ahmadinejhad has said his purpose on earth is to kick of the Final War, that the muslims will win. He doesn’t care if 90% of humanity is wiped out, as long as the 10% left are mostly muslim.
It’s a really big mistake to put your own thought processes onto an enemy which does not share them. I’m sure most “think tankers” in 1941 thought the Japanese would not attack, based on their own Western thought processes and reading of the geopolitical situation.
It’s really a classic mistake to do this. What counts is the Iranian leadership’s thinking, not your thinking or the Pentagon’s or the NSC’s or Obama’s.