At this point the 'we're about to attack Iran' has a crying wolf feel to it. Who knows, plenty of people in the admin clearly would like to, plenty others are opposed, so is the military. But sending carriers into the gulf is no more a clear indication of US plans than the Iranian enrichment is of theirs. Rhetoric on both sides can get silly. My guess, and like everyone else I can only guess, is that the sane people in the US government are keeping the crazies in check for the moment, while Cheney and co are hoping that the theocrats will up the ante from Bush-Cheney-like over the top rhetoric towards Bush-Cheney practice, giving them a rock solid case to strike back. Without that the Dems would absolutely resist

btw - the neocons are largely out - there's one senior staffer on NSC and a couple in the VP's office, plus Khalizdad on his way to the UN post, and Khalizdad is one of the only two prominent neo-cons who is both genuinely knowledgable and not completely delusional.

 Why quote Roberts - he's no more of an expert than you or I, and as you yourself point out he's crazy in his own field of expertise. Add that to his ugly politics, why give him any extra space, it only detracts from your argument.

Finally, your analogy with US/Germany Iran/Soviet Union is silly, even if one skips the false moral equivalence implied. If the US chose to implement even a fraction of the mobilization of its resources that Germany did in 1941, it would roll right over Iran. (Over three million German solidiers, scaled up by population that would equal an army of some twelve million Americans - I think the US could handle Iran with those numbers.)