Is it paranoid to think that the White House is planning to attack Iran--and soon? Reports like this one, from U.S. News & World Report, keep bubbling up every day:

Democratic insiders tell the Political Bulletin that they suspect Bush will order the bombing of Iranian supply routes, camps, training facilities, and other sites that Administration officials say contribute to American losses in Iraq.

Under this scenario, Bush would not invade Iran with ground forces or zero in on Iranian nuclear facilities. But under the limited-bombing scenario, Bush could ask for a congressional vote of support, Democratic insiders predict, which many Democrats would feel obliged to endorse or risk looking like they weren't supportive of the troops.

Democrats would feel "obliged" to support this? After everything we've seen so far? The Bush administration, meanwhile, hopes to offer up evidence of "Iranian meddling inside Iraq" in the near future--at least once all of those officials who are "concerned that some of the material may be inconclusive" are placated. At this point, I'd prefer that Democrats in Congress quit horsing around with all these "nonbinding" resolutions on Iraq and instead try to prevent the White House from blundering on into Iran. Most Dems seem to be in denial, though, hoping that all these rumors of impending war are just that. But is that really a safe bet at this point?

--Bradford Plumer