Like Thomas, I'm wondering why Iran was included in the State of the Union speech as composing one of the three axes. Can only surmise the influence of AIPAC (like this website with numerous articles, mostly mainstream contesting the Martin Indyk originated, "Dual containment, " of Iran and Iraq policy. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3163 )
One connected think tank really pushing Iran as a threat is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. See Patrick Clawson, Policy Watch #601, "Iran as Part of the Axis of Evil, Part II, " at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/ A previous briefing in that same series, #593, on the Hezbollah via Lebanon facilitation of 50 tons of weaponry to the Palestinian Authority, is made much of by Clawson and other hawks like Frank Gaffney at the Center for Strategic Policy. See, "Karine-A: The Strategic Implications of the Iranian-Palestinian Collusion, " by Robert Setloff.
I sense a bit of disquiet in the less militarist ruling circles (Daschle on Lehrer News Hour yesterday, one of today's editorials in the New York Times) about a policy that couldn't be better designed to draw together the "reformists" and "hardliners". (Does the punditocracy ever get tired of those overly simple designations?)
One other piece making the rounds from Uri Avnery in the latest Counterpunch, seems way too reductionist to me. Hint; It's All Oil! Michael Pugliese