Iran: more and more a question

Lots more discussion each day on the situation with Iran. Some thoughts:

Aside from Newsweek's Blowup? story, the UK press is pushing hardest on the story of a possible U.S. strike on Iran, especially this story in the Guardian, Saturday: Target Iran: U.S. able to attack in the spring; and this story in The Independent, yesterday, by Patrick Cockburn: Target Teheran: Washington sets stage for a new confrontation.

Harper's has a new feature, War with Iran? a continuing online forum with opinions from some independent analysts. From one, A. Richard Norton:

Remember that in 1990–91 and then again in 2003 the very fact that the United States assembled a formidable array of forces in the Gulf region became an argument for using those forces and launching wars. The United States will soon have two carrier task forces on station, and perhaps a third carrier task force will soon be deployed. It will be difficult for the United States to step down from its combative perch without Iran accepting some fairly significant concessions.

Memeorandum is linking daily to reports, including today's furor over an article in The Telegraph on Austrian guns found used by Iraqi insurgents. The guns were originally shipped to Iran. The comments seem to be from conservative bloggers mostly...

A Corrente blogger finds a disturbing line in a Washington Post story: a Cheney aide says war with Iran is a 'real possibility' despite Bush denials....Dan Froomkin has more on the denials:

...those sour-faced, unhappy-sounding critics Bush was mocking have, time and again, been proved right.

Meanwhile, MSNBC reports the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says there's no proof Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents.....More in The Washington Post.

JustForeignPolicy is starting a campaign to encourage Congress to oppose any U.S. intervention in Iran.