As a result, all they can do is threaten. Since they don't (objectively) look like strong threats (US public don't seem fond of more war at this moment and all those troops in Iraq are very vulnerable if Iran is attacked) the threats are unlikely to go anywhere.
Trouble is, if the threats don't go anywhere, are The Economist and Cheney crazy enough to push for war anyway? The jury is out...
Supposedly The Economist represents the moneyed interests who supposedly hold Cheney's leash and would yank on it it he got out of hand so supposedly there will be no war on Iran. But since The Economist doesn't seem to be yanking the leash but actually encouraging Cheney's barking, one has to wonder... Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Still, there was an optimum political moment for attacking Iran and that has passed. It may be that Cheney and Bush, not running for re-election will throw aside all popularity concerns, but I have the feeling that if they were that ruthless and efficiently focused on their goals, Iran would already have been attacked by now...
