Some recent Iran related views:

Foreign Policy has a piece on the build up to War On Iran. Fool Me Twice, by Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
(You can login to read the article with Username: MoonofA – Password: MoonofA)

The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops. The intelligence agencies say the nuclear threat from this nation is 10 years away, but the director of intelligence paints a more ominous picture. A new U.S. national security strategy trumpets preemptive attacks and highlights the country as a major threat. And neoconservatives beat the war drums, as the cable media banner their stories with words like “countdown” and “showdown.”

The nation making headlines today, of course, is Iran, not Iraq.
…
For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.

The problem, the writer thinks, is with the Democrats:

If diplomacy fails, the administration might be able to convince leading Democrats to back a resolution for the use of force against Iran. Many Democrats have been trying to burnish a hawkish image and place themselves to the right of the president on this issue. They may find themselves trapped by their own rhetoric, particularly those with presidential ambitions.

That may well be, but why would Bush ask Congress at all? Why not just start the bombing and wait for the Persians to retaliate. That retaliation then could be used to "ask" Congress for an all out war (and the draft that will be needed).

Steve Clemons believes the Israelis are, for once or for now, against an attack on Iran.

[O]ne of the take-aways from my recent Israel trip is that Israeli national security bureaucrats — diplomats and generals — have far greater confidence that there are numerous potential solutions to the growing Iran crisis short of bombing them in an invasive, hot attack.

But the zionist lobby groups do not agree. Clemons is citing Chris Nelson, the writer of the Nelson Report:

A hint of the sort of emotionalism the President is subject to may be seen in a full page ad in the N.Y. Times this morning (prominently paid for by The American Jewish Committee, oblivious to how it reinforces various heinous conspiracy theories) with an overlay map implying that future Iranian nuclear missiles would be able to strike deep into China, not just anywhere in Europe and the Middle East. . .and so, presumably, "proving" that an Iranian nuclear program must be stopped at all costs.

Another rather right-wing writer, also reports that the dices already have fallen.

A prominent ‘neocon,’ still in good odor at the White House and OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense), speaking privately, assured us that by the time president Bush leaves office in January 2009, Iran`s nuclear weapons ambitions would be history.

Assuming tough sanctions — draconian or otherwise — don`t bring Iran`s mullahs to heel, we inquired, trying not to sound too wimpish, what would be Mr. Bush`s next step?

‘B-2s,’ this prominent armchair strategist replied. ‘Two of them could do the job in a single strike against multiple targets.’

The hawks have already made up their mind. What could hold them back? Ar their any sane wise men left to step in and do this?

Before the Middle East`s unfriendly volcano erupts again, it would behoove the National Security team to advise the president that kicking butt in Iran, like kicking Iraq`s gluteal region, triggers the law of unintended consequences.

Nice idea. But look who is there and weep.