"I agree although I don't think President W has anything to risk except the loss of an ally (Israel) or major American cities. I hope the loss would only be the UN on our shores but that is truly wishful thinking."
The only real risk to Israel or American cities is if we wait too long. I feel that with our current airpower capabilities we could even prevent Iran from greatly affecting shipping on the Strait of Hormuz. The initial strike taking out nuclear, government, military and port assets in Iran would leave that country in a state of near-paralysis (and one hopes, revolt).
I think the administration has to deal with some tricky timing issues: we must wait 'til past the 2006 elections, past getting Iraq mostly stabilized, and yet before Iran gets the bomb. It would also be nice if domestic oil production cranks up some more first. ;-)
I strongly suspect we'll strike Iran before 11/08. Israel won't be involved, though Britain, Canada and Australia may pitch in.
Stories on TV last night had Tony Blair promising to leave office.
Sorry, but as one familiar with the industry from the inside, it doesn't work like that. You need at least a year just to change directions. That's because leadership has shifted in the industry, which no longer calls its own tune. The money-runners in New York have been playing "Mother, May I?" with the oil industry for years now, ever since the Bust. It takes a at least year to run a need to increase production up to them, have them bless it, and then run it back down the wiring diagram and make it happen.
Every layer is another layer of delay.