I have noticed quite a range of opinion here on whether the United States plans to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran, and the implications if we did so. This opinion has ranged from those who believe that such a move by us is so lacking in common sense that it is highly unlikely (the "Rationalists"), to those who believe that Bush and Cheney are so insane at this point that rationality doesn't enter the equation (the "Realists").
Actually, both sides are right.
I think both sides would agree that an attack, if it were to occur, would at least at the start be an air and missile attack launched from the two carrier groups we will eventually have in the region. Here, in fact, is an article from today's Arab Times that says the air and missile attack is planned for April. Its sourcing is sketchy, but it does fit with the other facts we already know. According to the article, the purpose of the attack would be:
The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq[.] ... The attack on Iran will weaken the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away, the source said.
Unfortunately, this sounds like the kind of reasoning that the Bush Administration has engaged in before to justify military action. It fits into other facts we already know. If true, it undercuts one of the reasons the Rationalists provide for why we are not planning an unprovoked attack on Iran. Furthermore, the Rationalist position is contradicted by their explanation of why we would be unable to provoke the Iranians into attacking us -- because they realize to do so would be contrary to their, since we can kick their ass and because it would likely result in the creation of a pan-Arabic alliance against them.
I am sympathetic to the argument that looks at a scenario for war and asks, "What it is good for," then answers, "Absolutely nothing," but to an extent this is a zero-sum game (our loss in Iran's gain, and vice versa).
It that old well-worn definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is true, then I guess Bush and Cheney are insane. If nothing else, you would think we would have learned that limited military intervention is not an effective agent of creating stability, and in fact under particular the economic, social, religious and political conditions present in the Middle East hold great potential for unleashing potentially uncontrollable forces.
But being insane does not mean that they lack purpose. It is possible that the troika of Bush and Cheney, the Neo-cons, and the Israelis have concluded that Iran can not be prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapon without military intervention, and that this intervention is better undertaken sooner rather than later. Once Iran actually obtains a nuke, obviously, the options become severely limited. So the purpose of all this might actually be to plunge the region into chaos before Iran goes nuclear.
Follow that scenario through to a logical conclusion, and it is not tough to see our own use of strategic nukes in the region. As we know, some analysts maintain that the only way we can take out the bunkers holding Iran's nuclear program is through a tactical nuclear weapon and that the Bush Administration ran this scenario past the military some time ago. Then, senior military brass put the brakes on this idiocy by leaking it to the media. Could the current openly aggressive strategy against Iran and Syria be a means to create a circumstance on the ground to justify the use of nuclear weapons against Iran?
I have no idea, but the fact of the matter is that it is not beyond the realm of possibility. And I'm not endorsing this strategy, I'm simply trying to explain it. It is nuts? Yes. Are Bush and Cheney capable of such thinking and action? Absolutely.
In any event, if an attack against Iran is in the cards, it may become apparent in the SOTU address. Strong rhetoric about Iran never being allowed to go nuclear, coupled with a message indicating we are unwilling to hold unconditional diplomatic talks with them, could presage an attack of some sort.