Firstly, Diego Garcia is UK sovereign territory and there is no way that the US will have permission to indulge in anything that has the sniff of pre-emptive illegality; the Blair administration is not out of the woods with the British public over Iraq, and I doubt that they could survive collusion in another illegal venture.

Look for far more prosaic indicators - a hefty spike in oil futures without any particular objective referent for the shift in market sentiment, coupled with all major stock indices tumbling and gold hitting new highs. There will also be at least one very high profile US military brass resignation in the run-up to any attack.

As things stand, there are no signs of US military preparations for an imminent attack, largely because there is no coherent military solution to the Iran nuclear issue, and the comeback from bombing has the potential to fracture the US's position in the Persian Gulf region as well as in Iraq.

It's worth noting that whilst the threats from Rumsfeld, Cheney and ( depending on who he's talking to ) Bolton are loud, they are little more than psychological warfare at this stage. The issue is eventually going to go to the UNSC and some kind of deal will get tabled - the interesting point is whether the US has worked out what it is prepared to forego for the sake of an agreement, or whether the Bush administration hawks are playing a rearguard action to forestall the possibility of the resumption of formal relations between Iran and the US.

With Iraq there were the famous WMD photos, presentations and speeches. There was the crafty insinuation that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. And everyone knew that Saddam was a bad man who tortured people and had gassed the Kurds, so even if you didn't agree with the other reasons you could persuade yourself on that basis.

Hence - popular support. Mostly.

This time, if the drums are beating, they're playing a very different tune, and it's not nearly as coherent and carefully arranged. Some vague hand-waving sense that Iran is a threat isn't going to give more than 10-20% of boost. And once the (literal?) fall-out starts happening, that's going to drop like a stone.

So if the plan is to push for that war-bounce, I don't think that's going to happen. There will be some, but it may be smaller than everyone expects.

The only thing that would change this would be a 9/11 style attack that could be pinned on Iran. I could be wrong, but I don't see that happening - at least not unless the Cabal is insane enough to nuke one of its own cities to create a pretext.  

politically that would certainly be expedient enough for them. I'm naive enough to believe they wouldn't go that for. But who knows?

This is PR-based instinct, and I could easily be proved wrong. But it just doesn't feel to me like the same level of persistent hysteria would be possible again, without another inciting incident.

The last couple of polls I could find showed decreasing support - 47% now (Zogby) and 57% (LA Times/Bloomberg) three weeks ago.

Compare this with 70% or so support just before the Iraq adventure. That's a lot of percentage points to gain, and a lot to lose if Iraq start turning into another disaster - which I'd guess it inevitably will.

Also, support for Iraq dropped very sharply immediately after the event. So for any political boost the invasion would have to be timed for Sept/October. And there's plenty of time for further disasters - Fitzgerald, another Katrina, another Dubai deal, or even some real terrorism - to unsettle everything before then.

I find these attacks on people's motives to be irritating.  

What's certain is this:
some people in this administration want to attack Iran;
it is certainly not beyond Bushco to take such a decision.

Let's ignore a number of facts, like a non-proliferation treaty that Iran is in the process of violating.  (How about arguing that there are some inequities in this treaty?--Nah, let's just accuse "some" Americans of being bloodthirsty killers.)  

Should you discuss at all that Americans may believe Iran is a real threat?  Nah, they're idiots for believing all that rubbish about "blowing Israel off the face of the map".

Should you wonder about why Iran hid from world view, in violation of the above treaty, steps they are taking toward nuclear weapons?

Should you think a little about what the implication is on Israel if a country that they believe wants to wipe them out, and therefore what the larger implication is on the Middle East?  Like might Israel attack Iranian nuclear reactors like in Iraq--yes much more difficult for success.  But just what do you think a country that has lived a holocaust, right there in Europe I might add--close enough to your ancestors time, that one might think one would have a very good gut feel about what might happen--might do when threatened in this way?

As to the diplomatic steps and partnering with EU-3, Russia and others that also see this threat, is it just possible that Americans want a non-violent solution?  Nope, let's ignore that one too--it's all a pretense.  They just want to start a war and make themselves feel good, the murdering sob's!  And certainly it is not beyond Bushco to support that--they can't support this diplomatic effort--"I, Jerome, know their motives,,,,,I know them for what they are"

As to this

it cannot be done considering how damaged the US Army is now;
it would fail, whether in the aerial bombing version, or in any invasion scenario;
it would be a disaster several orders of magnitude worse than Iraq

I just can't imagine why I had the nerve to take exception to any of your comments, Jerome.

1.  There is a huge difference in timing between Iran and Iraq.  As, I think, we have agreed in Gnomemoot 0, 5 years is the outward boundary on when Iran could have nuclear weapons.  So there is plenty of time for discussions, diplomacy, and outcomes very different than a war.
   
2.  There is a concerted effort between multiple parties, in fact led by parties other than the US, to drive a process with Iran, and get a resolution.  The parties are trying to get the ideal outcome of meeting Iran's needs for peaceful nuclear power, with having enrichment facilities to create nuclear power.  Buth then they realize and are discussing that diplomacy without carrots and sticks is sometimes not successful.  And the community is moving down that road together. As compared to Iraq, where what diplomacy there was, was in a pre 9/11 environment.  Any political organizations that issues 17 resolutions to a rogue regime, and allows those resolutions to be ignored, is feckless.  But admittedly, it was just a different period of history,,,,,it seemed ludicrous and made the UN look like a sham,,,,but it seemingly kept Iraq under control without taking unpleasent actions.
   
3.  In fact while there is consensus on a process today, there was none on Iraq.  The consensus in Iraq seemed had in reality crumbled.  My memory may be wrong here, but I believe France and Russia were arguing for lifting the embargoes.  So in general, the period of time passing while the UN did nothing, led to a breakdown of consensus over Iraq.  
   
4.  IMHO, , for the US administration and a large part of the American public, faith in the UN had been shattered.  There were a series of UN failures that seemed to underline that the UN could not be counted on.  (Note I'm not saying every American felt this way,,,but I believe there was a consensus in the country--IMO.)  The lack of follow through on all of these Iraqi resolutions; the heading up of the UN Human Rights Commission,,,wasn't it being passed from Libya to Iraq???   As compared to today, IMHO, there is some hope in the US that the combined diplomacy, some initial steps toward UN reform, the acceptance of the Volker report,,,,,and more, that the UN can be a more effective body.