I would dismiss this except for two things:

a) Bush would be foolish enough to do this...

b) The recent presidential speech on Iran a couple weeks ago sounded like they took a speach from 2002 and did a search and replace of Iraq with Iran.

Question: This seems a pretty clear prediction--how much credibility should one lose or gain if events don't follow the prediction? I'd say a lot. (Think how much credibility the administration has lost over its Iraq predictions.) If it is a lot of blog bloviation, there should be adverse consequences for the bloviators. If it isn't, I lose any credibility I have as a prognosticator.

This is not a good "prediction case", because it depends on too many "unknown unknowns".

Eg, will Carl Rove explain to the Decider that "bombing Iran means $5/gallon gasoline and a republican route come November". If so, no worries.

If not, worry.

Well, it's after Labor Day, and so far, judging by the papers, the Administration's big rollout is "the surge is working," "our new local strategy in Iraq is paying off" etc. Nothing about Iran.

Could this be a piece of misdirection and/or a bargaining chip? The left mobilizes to oppose war against Iran, the positive news from Iraq boosts public support for the war in Iraq, and the Administration compromises by agreeing not to attack Iran, just to stay the course in Iraq.

And Daniel's reaction to the war drums?

So, we'll see after 9/11 whether the Bush administration can repeat history without it turning into a farce. Lord knows, Iran's regime will elicit little sympathy from Americans -- nor should it.

Heh. No condemnation, no expressions of "is this mad", not even a scholars' insight as to the extent to which Iran's defiance is prompted by the United States' panting eagerness to displace the mullahs. You really will dance when they pound the war drums, huh?

I eagerly await the--no doubt fawning--review of Ledeen's new book on the Iranian Menace.

The fact that a lot of informed comment believes Bush could do something agaianst Iran makes it an excellent time to run a bluff.

Of course, assuming that this administration could pull off a successful bluff means assuming a level of competence heretofore unseen.

Dan, The ADL just posted this a short while ago:

http://adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/5124_00.htm

First paragraph: Over the next few weeks and months, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) will roll out a public awareness and advocacy campaign aimed at focusing attention on the gathering threat of a nuclear-armed Iran to Israel, the Middle East and the world.

What are the prediction markets saying about this?

There are one big thing that dan missed:
1) In barnett's other post he noted that there were already complete plans for a full bombing campaign. it has been corroborated by other sources like this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
and
http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf
the second is a study paper on attacking Iran by 2 SOAS professors, One being a former adviser to the foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament.

---------
but that aside, why would Bush attack Iran? I mean, I know he is not an rational actor, but even someone so obviously brainless must see how big the downside would be. So what is his reason for being so aggressive? I honestly don't understand it. Unfortunately, i only half-heartedly believe Ackerman's theory. If Bush was rational, this theory would have more weight, but it is too expensive to do all this stuff just for political positioning, and bush has no history of making moves that he didn't want to follow through with. so, honestly, I am pretty stumped. Other than israel, i can't see any serious reason.

As for the puppet and the puppeteer, it doesn't make any difference. I personally would argue that the USA the puppet in this case, because Iran is only a significant danger to the USA IF the USA attacks them, while Israel is generally threatened by Iran. Also, i would just point out that there were reports of Israel advocating against the Iraq war because they thought Iran was the bigger threat. So, i mean, Iran has been fully on Israel's radar for a long time, while it is only now getting on America's. But again, it doesn't matter really, because in either case, the consequences of an attack by the USA are much greater to both Israel and the USA than the importance of who's policy it is. Plus, it is not like Israel and the USA make policy independent of each other anyway. I mean, one is not puppet and the other not puppeteer, they work stupidly together. Just like how they are collective punishing the Palestinians. Who's policy is that, Israel or the USA? well, obviously, both.

Lastly, this doesn't provide an example of a prediction because no prediction was made by Professor Rubin or any one else. But it is pointing to signs of a possible policy. Similarly, when all those hurricane centers were publishing reports saying that the levies in New Orleans were dangerous, that didn't mean they were predicting that there would be a huge hurricane that would destroy them. They were just warning that there were clear and obvious signs that it was possible.

OK, the week after Labor Day is almost over, so where is this rollout. The front page story on AEI's website? No Child Left Behind. The only mention of Iran I could find was a book review way at the bottom. No mention of Iran on the WSJ editorial page website over the past week. Two articles in the past week at the Weekly Standard even mentioning Iran, one of which was pre-Labor Day. Nothing in the September issue of Commentary about Iran, and nothing on the front page of their website. Since Labor Day, there have been a total of 4 postins at Commentary's blot, Contentions, even mentioning Iran. One was a critique of Mearsheimer/Walt, and the only mention of Iran in there is a quote from the book review in the NY Times. Another one was about the hijab in Iran. The third one was a post skeptical of another claim that Rafsanjani is a "moderate," and the last was about a deal between Tehran and an Austrian energy giant. I'm not going to go through Fox's archive, but I'm willing to bet the drumbeat for war with Iran has been as absent as it has been at these other "usual suspects."

So please point out to me where this drum beat is. Am I missing some of the "usual suspects?"

On a rather interesting note, Barnett Rubin is also apparently an expert on Nigeria, Rwanda, the rest of sub-Saharan Africa and the Balkans in addition to Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East.

http://www.cfr.org/bios/115/dr_barnett_r_rubin.html?groupby=0&page=1&hide=1&id=115

Why not just throw in Latin America and East/NE Asia and be an expert on the world?

"Since Labor Day, there have been a total of 4 postins at Commentary's blot, Contentions, even mentioning Iran."

Obviously that should be "postings at Commentary's blog"

I take some comfort in answering Klug's question by reporting that at the Dublin market (Intrade) "US/Israeli Overt Air Strike against Iran" March 2008 shares are priced at 21.5. A non-trivial risk, but still the odds are nearly 4-1 that sanity will prevail.

Any actual sources that Rubin cares to name; no I thought so. This story has floated from Haaretz to the Guardian to Raw Story to the Daily Kos with few alterations

The comment starts with a false premise. The left was in pretty much in
full opposition, misinformation mode, from before the Iraq invasion.