How can a limited strike on Iran not be an all-out act of war?

What is half of an all-out act of war? A partial act of war? A half-assed act of war?

If you strike Iran directly then prepare for the worst… That is, prepare for a major escalation, perhaps Russian involvement. Am I saying we shouldn’t do it? Perhaps we should take out the Houthi’s first, then see what Iran has to say.

I mean if a limited strike on Iran isn’t an all out act of war then perhaps Iran using Houthis to attack Americans isn’t an all-out act of war either. That is, if you’re not one of the US soldiers getting fired on.

Sure, a flexible attack and response is always a good option and Reagan’s bombing of Libya back in 1986 did shut him up for a while. But Iran isn’t Libya and has more capability. That’s for the experts to decide but are we ready for a major war with Iran?

We’re $34+ trillion in debt, no small part due to the endless wars we’ve been waging since 1990 in the Middle East for questionable gains. In fact, China seems to be profiting quite handsomely on their infrastructure deals with Iraq.

Regardless of our course of action, let every expert, analyst and consultant that gets on mainstream media with an opinion to wage war reveal his current ties to military defense contractors or investments in these companies – including any blind trusts with such holdings – to prevent potential conflicts of interest.

Let the viewers decide for themselves with full transparency (SEE 2nd VIDEO BELOW).