Iran -- attack imminent?

I have compiled a collection of writings and research by those who know more than me and it persuades me to think that an attack on Iran has already been decided upon by this president. See and decide yourself.

• The long build up and a timeline.
  

• Think Progress links to an article in GQ where Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator from Nebraska states that in 2002, the original war resolution in Iraq was to cover the entire Middle East according to the wishes of the White House. Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative advocate of the Iraq war and person influential in this administration has "very little doubt" that the president would order "necessary" action.
  

• Seymour Hersh asks if Bush would attack Iran in order to prevent it from acquiring nuclear technology and weapons. In the early 2006 New Yorker article, he talks to military planners and White House insiders who shed light on the seriousness of the planning at that time. The use of low yield nuclear weapons is discussed.
  

• Glenn Greenwald discusses the legal justification of the President committing such an action. (be sure to check his other posts as well)

• The Prewar Build up. YOU WILL NOT SEE THIS ON CNN!
  

• Troops are authorized to kill Iranian agents in Iraq.

• Bush authorizes raid on Iranian consulate, technically sovereign land belonging to Iran.

• Other involved parties -- Syria, Israel, and a regional war?

• How the Iran war might begin from an interesting perspective... a Saudi journalist.

• Keith Olbermann on Familiar rhetoric from the pre-Iraq war build up.

• Lies trumpeted alleging Iranian involvement in the killing of US troops. (Does this sound familiar? Gulf of Tonkin incident?)
  

• More compelling commentary here and here and here and here and here.
  

If you feel like you need to do something you can contact your senator here. Anyone have other ideas how one can prevent this insanity?


UPDATE

Global banking firm ING issues report to their investors warning of strike against Iran.

ING's Robertson admitted that an attack on Iran was "high impact, if low probability," but explained some of the reasons why a strike might go forward. The Jan. 9 dispatch, describes Israel as "not prepared to accept the same doctrine of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that kept the peace during the Cold War. Israel is adamant that this is not an option for such a geographically small country....So if Israel is convinced Iran is aiming to develop a nuclear weapon, it must presumably act at some point."