As a democracy with the need to justify our actions, we are not likely to attack a country out of the blue to gain surprise.
There are military signs that may be visible before we hit Iran. I know, I thought I saw some signs before in the fall, so I may be reading nothing. But it feels like we are closer to a confrontation.
Consider that a report that two American Rangers were killed in Iraq makes me wonder why Rangers are there. Rangers are generally given strategic missions--like I noted here in explaining different ways to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. They aren't just another infantry unit to be rotated through Iraq for counter-insurgency missions.
Added to the presence in Iraq of a special unit for dealing with weapons of mass destruction and I have to wonder about what is coming.
Oh, and we moved AC-130 gunships into Iraq.
And though Ignatius believes that Iranian-United States talks are a sign of hope that conflict may be avoided, I think he misses the point in a major way. Iran is only willing to talk to buy time to go nuclear. They will never talk to actually give up nuclear weapons ambitions. Does Ignatius seriously think we have concluded that Iran might yet negotiate away nuclear weapons?
So talking to Iran is only our way of clearing the decks and preparing an argument that we gave the mullahs a last chance to settle this issue peacefully. The only date we are seeking is what H-Hour will be.