Did the GOP's Strategy for the 2006 Mid-Terms Just Go Down the Drain?

I theorized last week that BushCo will pull the same stunt in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections that they did for the 2002 mid-terms, namely, take the country's mind off all of its problems by forcing a vote in Congress on whether to invade a Middle Eastern country. In 2002, the country was Iraq (we all know how that turned out). I thought that this time it would be Iran. Such a strategy, however, has become more difficult to implement because of this:

"Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"'The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions,' said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity."

Although the lack of WMD didn't stop the Bush Administration from invading Iraq, the situation is different now. The events of 9-11 are nearly four years in the past, so Americans aren't as shell-shocked (and therefore not as gullible) now as they were in 2002. Bush's current popularity isn't what it was either, so I think our representatives in Congress are going to need some pretty strong evidence of an Iranian threat before backing BushCo on something like this. Of course, the most obvious argument against an invasion of Iran is that big chunk of America's combat strength is currently bogged down in the Iraq Quagmire and it doesn't look like that will end any time soon.