The likelihood of an American attack has diminished. American commanders "think it would complicate the situation in Iraq and the region," John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador, told me. He favors an attack but says "the Bush administration was much more inclined to do it a few years ago." Secretaries Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates, at State and Defense -_ relative moderates within the Bush administration - now dominate discussion of issues like this. [...]

... But then, why did the Pentagon announce last month that it planned to sell Israel 1,000 new GBU-39 bunker-busting bombs? They are small weapons that can be dropped from the wings of the fighter jets in Israel's air force. Each can penetrate 6 feet of reinforced concrete. If several aircraft hit the same target the total penetration could be much deeper.

Why does Israel need those bombs? Israeli military analysts have been saying they are for attacking underground weapons depots in Gaza or southern Lebanon. Perhaps.

But then, why about the same time did the Pentagon agree to sell Israel sophisticated upgrades for the country's Patriot anti-missile missiles _ and send more than 100 technicians to install them? If Israel attacked, Iran has warned that it would fire volleys of ballistic missiles in response.

And there's more: Just last week came the news that the United States has deployed an advanced early-warning radar system in Israel for detecting incoming missiles. It is so sophisticated that, for now, U.S. Army crews will be stationed there to operate it. [...]

Still, all of this may be a hall of mirrors. The United States may be arming Israel purely for defensive reasons. Israel's military exercises and blustery threats may simply be the state's way of warning Iran. On the other hand, the Bush administration's statements cautioning Israel may simply be an attempt to prevent Iran from blaming Washington if Israel does attack.

Before, the fear that the price of oil would skyrocket in the event of an attack was thought to be the drag on any approval by the Bush administration for an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear program. But with crude oil prices falling due to slackening demand thanks to the burgeoning global economic meltdown, that may no longer be as great of a concern for Bush as he assesses the likelihood that Obama, a man he views as an appeaser, is likely to follow him into the Oval Office come January.

If the Bush administration is hawkish enough to attack Iran or support an Israeli attack before it leaves office, the drop in world oil prices to the $80 to $90 a barrel range may give it enough of a cushion against the consequence of skyrocketing oil prices.

The administration may gamble that a quick, tightly targeted strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would bring only a brief, modest spike in oil prices, with the price settling back down in a week's time given the apparent downward trend in world oil demand. [...]

An attack against Iran is off the radar of the U.S. media, now focused on economic shocks and the presidential campaign.

However, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told Haaretz, the Israeli daily, in an interview on Oct. 3 during a visit to Israel: "I know that some people in Israel and in the army are preparing a military solution or not a solution but a military attack (on Iran). … This is not, according to my opinion, the solution."

Something tells me that the McCain camp is well aware of this "possibility" and will do everything in its power to convince Bush that he must allow an attack on Iran by Israel before the November election. Changing the conversation from the economy to the "War on Terror" is really the only hope McCain has of reversing dismal electoral prospects. The only question is whether Bush will feel the same urgency to help an old Maverick by deciding to do the unthinkable -- again.