My "let's not bomb Iran" hobby horse

Regular readers probably know the following things about me: 1). That I think war with Iran is a terrible idea; 2). That I think the best way to avoid war with Iran is to not strike Iran; 3). That I think the chances that George Bush won't strike Iran before he leaves office are pretty low.

Steve Clemons, who I respect enormously, has written an article called "Why Bush won't attack Iran" in which he concludes--counterintuitively--that a strike against Iran is actually rather likely.

Steve's actual premise is that a major series of strikes meant to cripple both the Iranian military and the Iranian nuclear program is probably not going to happen. More likely, he says, is a slow escalation to a more isolated conflict:

We should also worry about...an engineered provocation. An "accidental war" would escalate quickly and "end run," as [David] Wurmser put it, the president's diplomatic, intelligence and military decision-making apparatus. It would most likely be triggered by one or both of the two people who would see their political fortunes rise through a new conflict -- Cheney and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

That kind of war is much more probable and very much worth worrying about.

It's also what I've been worrying about for a few months now. And it's what I imagine Cheney is, at this point, banking on.