I read the New Yorker piece and some other related interviews by the author. He's claiming that since the US public isn't in favour of striking Iran outright for its alleged nuclear ambitions, Cheney and Bush are looking to spur a limited attack on it for supposedly fomenting terrorism in Iraq, ie.: Iranian militants intervening in Iraq and killing Americans, etc.
Of course, maybe their hope is that Iran would retaliate, the US responds with more firepower, and so on until war breaks out.
As a whole, the idea of a limited attack is to get some tacit international and domestic approval to check Iranian power. However, whether or not a limited attack will achieve that is uncertain. The American public is deadset against further involvement in the Middle East and, more importantly, the US military body is adamantly resisting getting involved in another Middle Eastern military operation. Their forces are stretched thin as it is, plus theyre losing in Iraq, a country ten times smaller than Iran. I remember reading that several military commanders pledged to resign if any mandated attack on Iran transpired.
Congress will be against it too, especially as the US enters an election year.
At the same time, the Iranian leadership isn't as stupid or delusional as Saddam was when the Americans were knocking on Iraq's door. Iran can simply choose not to respond to a limited American attack. A limited attack is a limited attack, it has to end sometime and by not responding, Iran could possibly avert war. However, this would would very much depend on the international response, which as far as I know, is not in favour of supporting such attacks (outside of Sarkozy). The rest of the Middle East, with the obvious exception of Israel, would absolutely not support it - they already have a refugee crisis on their hands.
Personally, I don't think Bush and Cheney will be able to pull it off. Everyone else in the equation is deadset against attacking Iran in any way. And if you don't have the military's support you don't have the military's support. The military bit off more than they could chew with Iraq and they know it.
We shall see.
Iraq and Iran are independence countries and USA has no rights to interfere there. Why do you think that Iran is the part of this war? Iran has refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, loses own diplomats there every day. And why should a government officially arm insurgents of another country? And what about blackwater and of course american authorities are involved in it ( they want to investigate in own way too febrily. They want to hide something ) Maybe they arm Iraqis. They can buy weapon from neighbour countries too for instance on black market from dealers. Is it very hard?
Americans occupants are killed by Iraqi insurgents. These insurgents are not 10 years old boys, they are adult or almost adult men they fight freely because conditions in Iraq are very poor. And they don't allow on illegal occupation. The same fights were in Poland during II world war and it was normal. So why are Iraqi insurgents treated as terrorists? Saying truly americans went brutaly ( as hitlerians in Europe during II world war) to independent country and they destroyed it totally not mentioning of american genocide and crimes. And there is no direct connections between government in Iran and Iraqi underground army. The hatred of Bush against this Iranian president is relies on it that Iranian president has petroleum and he can say what he thinks of Bush and USA. And very well. It is one person, who has no fear. And besides americans have own economical ruined, hopeless USA, they should sit there and take care of their country at last. They are not part of Middle East. And it is clear that their presence in this Iraq is quite redundant. They lost this country and it is clear too thanks to their war.