Okay, it will be circumstantial evidence at best.
But here is my theory: if Bush starts the Iran War WITHOUT a terrorist attack as an inciting incident, 9/11 will look more like LIHOP and/or incompetence since this is a bigger war than Iraq, and therefore needs a bigger sales event.
Conversely, if there is a terrorist attack right when the Bushies are itching to start a war AGAIN that would be too much of a coincidence and push the meter more towards MIHOP for both.
For some preliminary evidence of which way it's going to break, consider this story from the American Conservative magazine last summer:
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a
contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.
As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.
Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2005/07/cheney-plans-to-nuke-iran.html