The laws of war are hardly vague on this point. It's funny that an act of war is considered a sensible first step to try to avoid another act of war.

Whether we bomb them or blockade them, they would be within their rights to bomb our cities... which they cannot, which is why we talk this kind of trash.

If you read the article, Levin expressed optimism that hard sanctions would work against Iran. He was asked what should be done before combat operations. So it sounds more like a 'last step', no?

As far as a blockade being an "act of war", that's debateable as the term has no exact definition. Ron Paul thinks that sanctions are an "act of war", and he may or may not be right depending on what definition he goes by. One thing that's for sure is that a blockade is not on the same level as bombing the shit out of a country. Kennedy blockaded Soviet ships from Cuba. That didn't result in US cities getting bombed.

This isn't game, its like they want to keep tensions so high an incident is bound to happen. Keep your mouths closed. Christ, armchair generals exist in the Senate. DO YOUR JOB and leave the MILITARY and CIC's job to them. Speaking a bit off your pay grade Senator?

Thank god, Obama is CIC.

I think we all need to consider the context.

We need to spend money on people in need and infrastructive, not on hegemony and oil wars or we will disappear into the faded pages of history.