Unleashing the dogs of war – A growing strategic inevitability?

There seems a growing confidence among American hawks about the inevitability of an attack on Iran. Few appear willing to overtly bang the war drum, but notable hawks like Max Boot seem comfortable to engage in the debate from a perspective of ‘how’ and ‘when’ a targeted and ‘limited’ strike should occur, rather than ‘if’ one should occur. Meanwhile, a few anacrhonistic voices continue to make the argument for regime change. Opposing this ‘inevitability’ crowd are those persistent voices arguing that a ‘sweet spot’ of diplomacy and sanctions remains viable in the immediate term. Rather than arguing that the military option is an inherently ‘bad’ one, however, these moderates seem to be coalescing around arguing the relative sub-optimality of war in the current context, but increasingly admit that diplomacy is time constrained and its outcomes are contingent on Iranian short term actions.