ANOTHER U.S. aircraft carrier arrived in the Persian Gulf last week "as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran," CBS News reported. What's going on?

Vice President Dick Cheney says all options are on the table regarding Iran. What does this mean?

Two months ago, Navy Admiral William Fallon, commander of the U.S. forces in the Middle East, retired under pressure after he told reporters the Bush administration's "constant drumbeat of conflict" against Iran was "not helpful and not useful." A senior administration official said Fallon's comments "left the perception that he had a different foreign policy than the president."

Thomas Barnett, a former Naval War College professor, wrote in Esquire that Fallon was "standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war."

The Washington Post reported that Fallon's resignation "sparked a new round of speculation that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have some sort of plan in the works to attack Iran before their time is up."

If this is true, the public should know it. It's time to call public hearings and make that question at least as visible as Obama's preacher or Brittany Spears' adventures. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller is in position to make that happen.

Yes, George Bush has rattled his saber at Iran for years. In 2003, Time magazine reported that the Pentagon had drawn up a list of more than 1,000 Iranian targets that, if bombed, would immobilize the country. Two years ago, in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh detailed Bush administration plans to attack Iran.

But time is running out for the Bush team. In March, Washington Post analyst Dan Froomkin wrote: "It's still not really beyond Bush and Cheney to order a full-scale preemptive attack on Iran. But the more likely scenario is that there will be an asymmetrical U.S. response to a (possibly trumped-up) Iranian provocation. And the most likely scenario is that the United States will encourage (or certainly not oppose) an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities - which in turn would lead the United States to come to Israel's defense should Iran strike back."

In January, London's Sunday Times detailed Israeli plans to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Last year, the British paper reported that at least four U.S. generals and admirals have said they will quit immediately if Bush orders an attack on Iran.

This is sounding like an echo of the run-up to Iraq, when Bush and Cheney insisted that Iraq had horror weapons, was in bed with suicide fanatics, and made other false assertions that sucked America into the disastrous Iraq war.

In December, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, assembled by all U.S. intelligence agencies, reported that Iran has no atomic bomb program. Nonetheless, the administration insists that Iranians are developing bombs. Bush and Cheney say Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents. Top military leaders have said there is no evidence to connect the arms to the Iranian government.

Rockefeller should call hearings and ask all these questions. Whether or not he gets answers, airing the war threat in the light of day may prevent a disaster.

Vice President Dick Cheney says all options are on the table regarding Iran. What does this mean?

Two months ago, Navy Admiral William Fallon, commander of the U.S. forces in the Middle East, retired under pressure after he told reporters the Bush administration's "constant drumbeat of conflict" against Iran was "not helpful and not useful." A senior administration official said Fallon's comments "left the perception that he had a different foreign policy than the president."

Thomas Barnett, a former Naval War College professor, wrote in Esquire that Fallon was "standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war."

The Washington Post reported that Fallon's resignation "sparked a new round of speculation that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have some sort of plan in the works to attack Iran before their time is up."

If this is true, the public should know it. It's time to call public hearings and make that question at least as visible as Obama's preacher or Brittany Spears' adventures. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller is in position to make that happen.

Yes, George Bush has rattled his saber at Iran for years. In 2003, Time magazine reported that the Pentagon had drawn up a list of more than 1,000 Iranian targets that, if bombed, would immobilize the country. Two years ago, in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh detailed Bush administration plans to attack Iran.

But time is running out for the Bush team. In March, Washington Post analyst Dan Froomkin wrote: "It's still not really beyond Bush and Cheney to order a full-scale preemptive attack on Iran. But the more likely scenario is that there will be an asymmetrical U.S. response to a (possibly trumped-up) Iranian provocation. And the most likely scenario is that the United States will encourage (or certainly not oppose) an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities - which in turn would lead the United States to come to Israel's defense should Iran strike back."

In January, London's Sunday Times detailed Israeli plans to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Last year, the British paper reported that at least four U.S. generals and admirals have said they will quit immediately if Bush orders an attack on Iran.

This is sounding like an echo of the run-up to Iraq, when Bush and Cheney insisted that Iraq had horror weapons, was in bed with suicide fanatics, and made other false assertions that sucked America into the disastrous Iraq war.

In December, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, assembled by all U.S. intelligence agencies, reported that Iran has no atomic bomb program. Nonetheless, the administration insists that Iranians are developing bombs. Bush and Cheney say Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents. Top military leaders have said there is no evidence to connect the arms to the Iranian government.

Rockefeller should call hearings and ask all these questions. Whether or not he gets answers, airing the war threat in the light of day may prevent a disaster.