it appears that even the chairman of the joint chiefs, not known for his dovish demeanor, is opposed to it, among other things:

Noting U.S. participation in international talks Saturday with Iran over its nuclear program, Mullen said he was encouraged. "A few weeks ago I wouldn't have thought those were possible."

But he said he supports continued economic, financial, diplomatic and political pressure on Iran.

"I fundamentally believe that they're on a path to achieve nuclear weapons some time in the future. I think that's a very destabilizing possibility in that part of the world. I don't need -- we don't need -- any more instability in that part of the world," Mullen said.

Rice said she believes pressure is growing on Iran "to do the right thing." But, she added, while the U.S. is committed to a diplomatic solution, Bush is keeping all options open.

Mullen, meanwhile, discussed the fallout from a potential attack against Tehran by either the U.S. or Israel. "Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one."

He added, "I worry about the instability in that part of the world and, in fact, the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that and, in fact, having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to both predict exactly what it would be and then the actions that we would have to take to contain it."

[bolding mine]
link

as for israel proceeding as cheney's surrogate, as benny morris threatens, l would point you to this article at huffpost by  david bromwich where he succinctly de-constructs morris' argument.

additionally,it seems even the israeli's understand the message mullen sent a week and a half ago:

Thursday, July 10, 2008

A senior U.S. strategic analyst says the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, sent Israel an unequivocal message stating that Israel does not have a "green light" from the U.S. to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

:::

Cordesman said Mullen came to Israel to deliver a message - that Israel did not have a green light to attack Iran and that it would not receive U.S. support for such a move.

According to Cordesman, Mullen was expressing the official opinion of the U.S. administration, including that of President George W. Bush and the National Security Council.

link

chimpy's just dialing up the pressure so the next guy comes into office with a pretty serious problem.

typical petulant behaviour for an old frat boy failure... trash the place and let somebody else clean up the mess.

the revolution will not be televised...Peace

back in september of 2006, vanity fair's james wolcott remarked:

i have a theory on why the war party rhetoric has gone skittish and skyhigh, a theory based on casual observation of new york streetfights (streetfights everywhere, really). what i've noticed is that the trash talk in a street altercation escalates in proportion to the expanding distance between the two protagonists. when two potential fighters are almost literally in each other's faces, their words are few, their expressions fierce. it's when the fist fight has been avoided (or tabled) and they're putting distance between each other that the taunting becomes louder and more florid. "get back in my face again, motherfucker, and i'll pound your face into hamburger meat, motherfucker." "come back and say that to my face, lame-ass motherfucker." etc. you can supply your own david mamet expletives and challenges. one of my favorite verbal showdowns occurred on 14th street one rainy day when two non-pugilists kept up the trash talk until one of them said, "you're carrying an umbrella, motherfucker — how tough can you be?" which i must say got quite a chortle from us idle bystanders.

now what has this to do with the posings of our militaristic muscle mouths?

this: it is an index of the frustration and impotence they're experiencing at not getting their way. they're waging rhetorical escalation because de-escalation is the unacknowledged order of the day, and there's nothing they can do about it.