From milblogs:
In my view, Iran and Syria are engaged in "all out war" although the form is currently asymmetric war by proxy.
Since the goals for Iran and Syria include the complete destruction of Israel and, at least, the neutering of the United States, I consider them to be seeking "total" victory. I would argue that this includes the removal of any restraint on their ability pursue their national or extranational interests (perhaps in re-establishing the Caliphate?).
And, though their approach is not masses of tanks and waves of aircraft, they are fighting on their schedule and within their capabilities. They are subordinating everything to the war effort. Thus, it is, in my view, "total war." It is not being fought like previous wars. It is being fought on several fronts.
Iran is "continuing politics by other means" through its surrogate actions. Walid Phares has identified four goals Iran wants to gain through this current effort at misdirection (or a feint?):
1. Iran is concerned about the nuclear crisis and wants to deflate the issue away.
2. Syria is concerned about the Hariri murder investigation and wishes to postpone its results.
3. Hizbollah is concerned about the call for disarming its militias and therefore decided to flare up the conflict with Israel.
4. Finally, Hamas was sinking in crisis with Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. Thus a Jihad against Israel was the solution.
But these concerns are but a small part of the larger war which includes support of terrorists, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and pieces of the Iraqi "insurgency."
In addition to the attacks on civilians and other indices of total war, the war continues with propaganda, perhaps including tripe like this which asks one part of the Iranian goal, "Imagine a world without Israel."
If your goal is total destruction of another state and you have announced that goal and taken steps to make it come true, then it smells like "all out war" to me. "Death to the United States" is a goal, not just a chant.
What is currently happening may be just a skirmish or it may be the beginning of a bigger battle. But it is part of a larger whole. An "all out" war, in my view.
And
Think the US would ever respond as forcefully to the kidnapping of American soldiers?
I doubt we'll see all-out war here, or any significant escalation (beyond whatever level Israel decides to take this) at all. Israeli/Arab wars are generally named by the number of days it takes the Israelis to win, and its neighbors are well aware of that. They switched tactics to prolonged terrorism years ago for just that reason. As for the Persians, while the Mullahs may be mad, they don't want the outright whup-a they know Israel would inflict upon them.
There's been discussion as to how this might impact the situation in Iraq. It will be interesting to see whether the non-Iraqi "insurgents" elect to stay fighting the Crusader or if they head for the hills (of Lebanon or elsewhere) for the latest round of war against the Jew. My guess is they will go with whichever they perceive as the softer opponent, while simultaneously declaring it the greater threat in order to save face. (For the record, I expect that will be us.)
And while many refer to Israel's "two-front war", apparently it's lost on one and all that it is the Jihaddis who are now facing a three-front (Israel-Iraq-Afghanistan) shooting war (albeit low-intensity) against the Crusaders and Jews.
But if their own publications are to be believed, this is exactly the "Savagery" the terrorists want. Those same manuals also indicate that "escalation" will come in the form of more terrorist attacks in locations removed from those current hot spots. It only takes a handful of goons to achieve that.
But all-out war between Israel, Iran, Syria, and whoever? Fugadabowdit.
