Are they playing chicken? Or are they really planning on military action?

So how would bombing Iran serve American interests? In over a decade of looking at the question, no one has ever been able to provide a persuasive answer. The president assures us he will seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis. And there is a role for threats of force to back up diplomacy and help concentrate the minds of our allies. But the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling.

The parallels to the run-up to to war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was "no war plan on my desk" despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion. Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well.

Richard Clarke and Steven Simon were, respectively, national coordinator for security and counterterrorism and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council

I suspect the answer to the playing chicken question is that the administration is doing both. Clearly, Special Ops are already in Iran working directly and through surrogates to try and overturn the Iranian government, and gathering intelligence in preparation for an attack. Clearly the Pentagon is putting together operational plans. Clearly troops are being moved in Iraq and internationally to support those operational plans. And we certainly know that the original PNAC plan was to hit Iran and Syria after Iraq.

Yet, most people with half a brain understand that an attack on Iran might likely leave the U.S. with a number of dire circumstances. Some I've spoken with, and a common meme in the media, is to say there's no way Bush would attack Iran because it's "just crazy", neglecting to notice that Bush has acted crazily in the past. But in truth, I don't think the decision has been made, and I take Bush at his word that he is "keeping his options open". But how open are those options?

No, what concerns me is the miscalculation. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Saddam miscalculated the seriousness of Bush's threats, and Bush miscalculated the threat posed by Saddam, and the insurgent reaction within the country. There are a lot of dead people who could testify to this little miscalculation. I think the same thing is happening with Iran. On the American side, the Cheney administration is reacting with it's usual overzealous fear, over-estimating the threat of Iran .... even a nuclear Iran. This paranoia easily sways the messianic Bush into actions that are, indeed, crazy. On the Iranians side, I think they've made the calculation that the U.S. is so weakened by Iraq, and so concerned about the consequences of an attack, that the U.S. would never risk attacking. This type of story is legendary throughout history, with awful consequences.

It's not that I'm afraid that a decision has been made to attack. It's that I'm watching two locomotives barrelling down the tracks on a head-on collison course, and nothing is there to stop it. Bush's belief in the unitary executive will result in no Congressional oversight in this instance, and his demonstrated narcissism will not allow any other brakes on his authority.

Remember what I've said about a cornered narcissist in the past?

The assumption by the Iranians that Cheney/Bush are rational, along with internal Iranian turmoil, will continue to propel them in a game of brinksmanship.

That's what scares me.