Of course if Clinton should win the election the neocons may not have the influence they desire but certainly the Israeli lobby would, so it is still possible an attack on Iran is in the offing.
I think a good scale of comparison is the 1998 bombing of Baghdad versus the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Certainly Saddam posed a much greater threat in 1998 than in 2003, and yet the Clinton Administration managed to placate the neo-cons without spending a half trillion dollars and several thousand American lives. I suspect a second Clinton Administration will similarly examine the cost/benefit ratios with much more circumspection than the neo-con cabal would like, and come up with a regimen that is at least marginally satisfying to them, and at the same time much more difficult for peacemongers to argue against.
Until January of 2009, however, I am still holding back, afraid to exhale too loudly. Every day that passes without an attack on Iran is another day we are less insecure, less in danger of a cataclysm.
