War with Iran indeed seems likely. Signs are everywhere. Among them, these:
1. In President’s “surge” speech the most notable statements related to “confronting Iran.” He needed no speech to announce to the nation his sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq; he had more troops there last year. Additional troop make more strategic sense if mission is to beef up U.S. defenses in anticipation for attack on Iran than they do to defeat insurgency.
2. Centcom’s new chief is a Navy Admiral with little experience in insurgency warfare, but his experience lends itself well to an attack on Iran.

3. Bush announces he’s sending two carrier groups to the Persian Gulf. This has little to do with fighting an insurgency, but much to do with attacking Iran.

4. Bush announces sending Patriot missiles to Iraq. Such weapons have no strategic value in a ground war, but are well suited and necessary to fight Iran.

5. The day after U.S. forces raid Iranian consulate in Kurdish Irbil, arrest 5 Iranians with diplomatic credentials, and seize computers and documents.

6. Col. Sam Gardener, among others, claims U.S. Special Forces are already operating in Iran. The day after Bush’s speech several large explosions are reported in southern Iran.

7. The European financial giant ING Group issues special report to its clients saying that an Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran likely in February or March.

(Of course, his reasons for war appear specious. Nobody actually paying attention believes that Shiite Iran is supplying the largely Sunni insurgency with weapons to kill it Shiite Iraqis. In reality the evidence is nonexistent: Defense Secretary Des Browne said “I have not myself seen any evidence – and I don't think any evidence exists – of government-supported or instigated armed support on Iran's part in Iraq.")