Here's a report from a Lefty blog referencing another Lefty blog that references a Sunday Times of London report that says, and I quote, "(T)he Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days." One can only wish.
Interestingly, the Lefty blog that's referenced had posted the following at the Daily Kos:
The U.S. cannot mount a ground invasion or occupation of Iran, but it might be capable of an air attack and sea embargo. The administration has prepared a legal justification by floating its plan to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Since the IRGC is under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the administration, with its usual legal acuity, could claim legal authority for an attack on Iran under Senate Joint Resolution 23 of September 18, 2001,which authorized the use of military force against "those who plan, authorize, commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests -- including those who harbor terrorists."
Now, because that was posted on the Daily Kos, I'm taking all of that to be a negative. But, if one didn't know it was posted by a Lefty, it could actually be taken to make perfect sense. After all, there's incontrovertible proof that Iran has been fighting a proxy war against the US in Iraq. Hell, Iran's even admitted it, and promised that things would only get worse if Iran is attacked.
It's odd how one can take a single paragraph and, without changing a word, perceive it in two completely different ways. On the probability of Bush actually taking action against Iran, I think one only has to look at his recent actions to know that he has no plans to do so. Unless they've all been smokescreen, which would be a bit of a surprise.