In my opinion the number one question we're going to face during the next year or two, is how do we stop an attack on Iran. Forget global meltdown and Peak Oil for a bit, these things are threats we face in the future. Iran is far more of an 'immediate concern' and could bring on the effects of Peak Oil far quicker than actually 'running out of oil' ever could.

What worries me, is that the current Bush administration has a great deal of support for taking some sort of action against Iran, especially in Congress, and not just in the Republican group. I seem to remember hearing various politicians stating that waiting and allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is a greater threat/risk, than taking action, before it's too late. This of course in a question of 'balance' and relatively small things can upset or sway such a balance.

There is also the 'Israeli equation.' What happens if Israel decides to lauch an attack on Iran? Is that worse or better for the US? Is attacking the nuclear facilities enough? Isn't 'regime change' in Iran the only viable and long-term solution to the Iranian question? These are difficult and complicated questions.

Perhaps Tony Blair could even stop such an attack. Let's imagine that literally threw himself into campaigning against an attack, with the same energy and vigour that he used to justify the war with Iraq. By doing this he might even wipe-out the stain on his reputation, save his legacy and secure his place in history. Surely this would be the kind of challange he loves, once more at the centre of the world stage, travelling from country to country, city to city, and speaking to millions at anti-war demonstrations. His rhetorical skills, and flowing words, mezmerising the adoring crowds, maybe even flanked by Bono and Sting holding guitars! Could he do it, could he swing the American people behind an anti-war stance? I think he just might pull it off. If only an angel would whisper in his ear!

If I was him, I'd go for it, and definitively break with Bush. I fear though that his gone too far down the road to perdition, and redemtion, is well nigh impossible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082_2.html

(which is down right now, so I can only quote indirectly) and discussion of this is making the usual rounds:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/8/235510/7871

The suggestion has been made that this is a sort of palace coup - an attempt to prevent such an attack by leaking the information to the press.

It isn't just the U.S. of course:

Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosives-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the mission without nuclear weapons.

The Israelis are pushing for an attack soon - probably because they think there is a window of opportunity while Bush is in office.

Israel points to those missiles to press their case in Washington. Israeli officials traveled here recently to convey more urgency about Iran. Although U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Iran is about a decade away from having a nuclear bomb, Israelis believe a critical breakthrough could occur within months. They told U.S. officials that Iran is beginning to test a more elaborate cascade of centrifuges, indicating that it is further along than previously believed.

The question as to why a nuclear attack is being contemplated has to do with the underground targets they are trying to destroy:

"The targeteers honestly keep coming back and saying it will require nuclear penetrator munitions to take out those tunnels," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA analyst. "Could we do it with conventional munitions? Possibly. But it's going to be very difficult to do."

Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert in targeting and war games who teaches at the National Defense University, recently gamed an Iran attack and identified 24 potential nuclear-related facilities, some below 50 feet of reinforced concrete and soil.

The conclusion being reached is that we are painting ourselves into a corner:

Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it. "The Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military option," he said.

I found this from the Times article you noted (thanks!) quite revealing:

"The Sunday Times was last week given the same message. A senior White House source said Bush and Cheney were determined not to bequeath the problem of a nuclear Iran to their successors. "It's not in their nature," he said.

White House insiders scoff that Bill Clinton left Al-Qaeda unchecked. A nuclear-armed Iran, they believe, is too dangerous to be left to a potential Democrat president.

One date is said to be etched in the minds of military planners: 2008. Word has gone out that the Iranian nuclear crisis must be resolved by then or the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with its Israel-baiting rhetoric, will face military consequences."

It reminds me of the point made by the Indian General after the Gulf War, "Don't fight the Americans without nuclear weapons."

As to some other comments on this point, it is unlikely that Iran would have its first nuke or two for three years.