911 inadvertently provided an opportunity to invade Iraq which Rove admits now.
There have been no "opportunities" to attack Iran yet. Many people erroneously believe the phrase "to attack Iran" is equivalent to invading Iran. Nothing further from the truth can be imagined. The attack has always been planned as a strategic surgical strike aimed at destroying Iranian nuclear capabilities (the Israelis mystically believe without evidence those capabilities are for weapons, but certainly they are proven for civilian purposes). Concomitant with that strike is the requisite corollary to minimize any possible military response by the Iranians. A tall order but apparently within the capabilities of the military as noted by an independent think tank and certainly US military thinkers believe there are favorable scenarios.
For a little over a year there has been much debate over timing. Note the Israelis do not care if sanctions are in place nor their effect. Their concern is only that Iran continues to enrich uranium which to them is cognate with making a nuclear weapon. So the question is not about "if" but about "when" it will happen.
Adm Fallon has been resistant to attacking Iran for any of several reasons. His resistance has mitigated any possible campaign to build support for the Israeli agenda driven model. If he is no longer a variable, the equation would be simplified by a more compliant military willing to parrot the administrations arguments a la Gen Odierno and build an appropriate support base. Note also that the administration has now stated that everything the administration does in Iraq has already been authorized by Congress. If an Iranian scenario can derived from Iraq, the support base would be inconsequential.
So the calculus would be down to balancing Israeli impatience and US political expediency. The Israelis wonder why the US hasn't already attacked Iran based on their insistence Iran is working on nuclear weapons. The current administration at the highest levels certainly support the Israeli position but Adm Fallon is a problem. Finding what would be almost assuredly a (transparent to the "real" agenda) justification is too easy.
We have already seen the administrations use of the nuclear weapons card without effect. The reason is there is no evidence which supports it. The other is more viable, Iranian support of the Iraqi insurgency.
The military still can not say with any certainty that the weapons used by insurgents/shiite militias which flow from Iran are the result of Iran's support for the insurgency or shiite militias. However at every opportunity the administration has banged away hard that Iran is the culprit.
The last piece of the puzzle is the timing. So with Adm Fallon out of the way, a justification ready for prime time, whats stopping the attack? My guess is there is someone or a group of people who continue to point out there is no legitimate justification to attack Iran and that has caused a brief respite. But as election day looms ahead of us and the administration finds that it may not be able to continue neoconian foreign policy, the precision with which we can calculate the date of an attack will become easier.
There is another possibility overlooked by some in that should the Democratic candidate win the election that person may be on board with the Israeli agenda. If that is the case, the timing issue would be more fluid and would offer an opportunity to firm up any justification. The possibilities would be, proof the Iranian government was supporting the Iraqi insurgency or enrichment levels rising above required reactor fuel levels.
I don't believe either possibility at this time has much substance and can project in the near term neither would be viable justifications. Under these circumstances the pressure from Israeli instance to attack would become insurmountable and if no viable justification has been found then a manufactured justification would be used.
