Desperately Seeking Provocation

Reuel Marc Gerecht in Newsweek: "The mullahs don't want peace in Iraq—just the opposite. War may come, but not because negotiations break down. The likely trigger is an Iranian provocation."

And if Iran doesn't provide a provocation? See bullet point #6 on this list.

How would this White House justify both an attack on Iran and its timing? It's an important question. The latter poses a more formidable obstacle than the former. We know that as of 2005, the U.S. intelligence community's estimate was that Iran was about a decade away from the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. Over the past two years, predictably, that timeline's been whittled down, but it's still at least 3-5 years according to most credible observers. So how would the president justify the specific timing of a strike? Perhaps a more realistic question: Does he even think he needs to? Of course, a "Persian Provocation" would solve the problem nicely. Even after the WMD fabrication, I wonder whether the public would have the presence of mind to view a latter-day Tonkin with appropriate skepticism. If an "incident" happens, there probably won't be much time for discussion.

If you're wondering what's behind the spike in this sort of chatter, events in the global financial markets -- related in part to the subprime fiasco -- have important geopolitical implications that, in my opinion, have made military action against Iran more likely. You didn't think it was all about nukes, did you? More on this soon if time permits.