Setting the contingencies for attacking Iran

The BBC has an article claiming to outline (loosely) the US targeting for a potential attack on Iran. However, what caught me was the reporting of existent "triggers" for such an attack.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

I understand the presence of both, but I would like to point out that either one of these contingencies would have support only from intel, and at this point I think we can all agree that this administration cannot be trusted in that regard.

Of more specific concern is that second contingency. A month ago, Bush administration officials were reportedly preparing a powerpoint presentation claiming the weapons in Iraq were coming in on the orders of the Iranian government. Now, they're backing away from that claim.

Once it's started, you cannot walk back an attack on Iran.