There seems to be a lot of discussion on this site regarding this issue, which I confess I have not read in depth. Nonetheless, after reading Seymour Hersh's columns over the past 18 months--describing the Administration's desire to push the envelope in favor of a military confrontation with Iran-- an article in Sunday's Times of London (9/2/2007)--detailing the military's plans for a massive aerial strike against Iran-- and also Jim Rutenberg's article in Sunday's NY Times (9/2/2007)--describing author Robert Draper's interviews with Bush which reveal a man obsessed with his Middle East legacy, I believe an attack on Iran is a real possibility.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...
http://www.nytimes.com/...
That doesn't mean it is a certainty, as there are many practical obstacles to such a move, but it is clear that both the intent and the means to attack Iran are sufficiently present to warrant concern. It is like a dormant chemical reaction waiting for a catalyst. That catalyst may never materialize before Bush leaves office, but that doesn't mean the risk is any less.
In my view, Bush wants to be remembered as an historic figure (curious for one who doesn't read and is not intellectually inclined) particularly on the issue of Iraq. As fanciful as this notion appears to those of us in the reality based world, Bush believes that if he can force his successor to stay in Iraq for the long haul, that will make his vision for a quasi-US colonial presence in the Arab world official US policy and with some marketing, he'll be redeemed.
Furthermore, Iraq was only one part of the neocon vision. The goal was to make Iraq the new base of a permanent US military presence in the Middle East from which the US would attack and force regime change in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and possibly Egypt.
The problem with Bush's current plan is that there is virtually no chance that any Democratic President would keep troops in Iraq for the long haul. Suppport has crumbled and the only thing Bush is holding onto is continued stop-gap funding for current operations. Even that position is weakening as more Republicans appear willing to condition funding on a fundamental change in the mission. In this sense, the Democrats have been hugely successful in changing the terms of debate on the war.
Even though oil prices have dramatically increased, there is no call by the American people to invade and occupy the Middle East for the purpose of seizing the oil. This is not Ancient Rome after all, and Bush is certainly no Caesar (though he may think so).
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have each pledged to withdraw/redeploy troops from Iraq. These candidates will not break this promise, because it would mean political doom. Further, there is little Bush can do in Iraq to change their minds. There is no military victory to be had, just more civil war and death.
Therefore, to keep the next US President tethered to the Middle East, Bush must do something more. That something would be Iran. Bush and Cheney have little to lose in pushing for an attack on Iran. A massive air strike is something the US military could do, with little loss of life to the Air Force or Navy. It is unclear how effective an Iranian military response would be, as they do not have troops in Iraq and would have to invade another sovereign country to attack US troops. It is unlikely that the Iranian Navy or Air Force could inflict serious damage on the US military.
There would be a rally around the flag effect in the US, especially among Republicans, and the terms of debate about the US role in the Middle East would change almost overnight. The purpose for the US troop presence would no longer be to create a stable Iraq but rather to keep Iran in check. By creating a war with Iran, Bush would essentially lock the US military into a permanent military presence in Iraq. It might even change the political dynamic in the US, which currently strongly favors Democrats, and may give the GOP a chance to regain its footing.
For Bush and Cheney, an opportunity to push the US into a constant state of military alert would be more than worth the cost. It's their only chance to redeem themselves politically and in the eyes of history seen from their vantage point, however skewed.
Such a war has obstacles of course. The military is generally against it as are Congress and the American people. We may not have the military capability to inflict the damage we desire, nor the ability to sustain such an attack over time. There would be no foreign allies of note who would support such a move. Oil prices would probably increase sharply and may cause a recession. The attack would likely be illegal under US and international law. Shiites in Iraq might view the attack in very personal terms and take it upon themselves to stop tolerating the US presence and become as combative as the Sunnis, leaving US forces in a more vulnerable situation. Muslims around the world would become even more inflamed (especially Shiites), and the US would find itself diplomatically isolated.
However, given the general timidity of the US Congress and the overly deferential position Congress and the Courts have taken with respect to executive power during the Bush years, I see no real legal accountability for Bush and Cheney if they were to attempt such a gambit. Does anyone really believe the US Congress would impeach Bush or Cheney with troops in the midst of a new war front? I doubt it.
In short, I think we must take seriously the threat of an unprovoked war instigated by the US against Iran. I don't think there can be any doubt that the issue has been seriously discussed at the highest levels of power, that war plans have been made, and that Bush and Cheney are strongly desirous of an opportunity to strike. It may not happen, but that is really up to the American people, the military and the Congress to decide.