While there isn't any "smoking gun" type evidence, there is a clear pattern:

Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?

by Bill McGaughey


“That’s so deja vu,” said Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, when he saw U.S. efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically. “He (Lavrov) said the debate over punitive measures reminded him of the international dispute leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.” (Star Tribune, March 9, 2006, p. A22)

Was the U.S. planning to attack Iran? I put that question to an aide of Republican Senator Norm Coleman. Somewhat stunned, he said that the U.S. government is exploring various options in its campaign to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and that force would only be used as a last resort. Still, Senator Coleman was not taking the military option off the table, he said.

Let’s be clear about this: U.S. military action against Iran is a real possibility. Even after the Iraq misadventure, President Bush and the neo-cons have their eye on more such actions in the Middle East to “bring freedom and democracy to this region” or, more candidly, to protect Israel’s security interests. The fix is in. Regardless of all the diplomatic maneuverings, the U.S. and Iran are on a collision course leading to war.

Since December, Russia has been trying to arrange a deal with Iran that would allow it to acquire nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Iran insists that its nuclear program was directed toward that end. The United States is equally insistent that Iran might build nuclear warheads to threaten Israel if it obtained “access to the technology and knowledge needed to enrich uranium.” Iran was defiant. “The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain,” said the Iranian delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll.” (Star Tribune, March 9, 2006)

The U.S. began to rattle its sabers. “Heightening the tensions over Iran’s refusal to back down (from its nuclear program), Vice President Dick Cheney, in some of the strongest language yet used by the administration, said the Teheran government must recognize that unless it changes course, ‘the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences.’ Cheney used formulaic language that implies the threat of military action. ‘For our part, the united States is keeping all options (including military ones) on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,’ he said at a Washington policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a strongly pro-Israel group.’” (Star Tribune, March 8, 2006, p. A3)

Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested a way that war with Iran might begin. “Issuing a new charge, Rumsfeld linked Iran to the insurrection in Iraq, saying members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al Quds Division had infiltrated Iraq to perform missions ‘harmful to the future of Iraq ... In a country the size of California with a population of 28 million people and porous borders, with Iranian pilgrims going back and forth all the time, it’s not an easy thing to make those kinds of judgments.” But the Defense secretary was sure that “the Iranian troops were ... acting on Tehran’s orders. ‘The Revolutionary Guard doesn’t go milling around willy-nilly one would think.” (Star Tribune, March 8, 2006, p. A3)

Like the Iraq invasion, this situation involving Iran gives the appearance of having been decided in advance. A shadowy group of U.S. policy advisors, the “neo-cons”, have been itching for some time to flex our nation’s muscles as the world’s only military superpower. CIA counterterrorism expert, Richard Clarke, told the Washington Post: “My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002.” (March 22, 2004)

Rest of Article at top link

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer