Well, it's pretty self-explanatory. I want to know what you all think. I lean towards option 4 (the Saudi intervention one) for a few reasons:
--Bush couldn't seriously have feared the Iranian military. Give me a break. Is the entire might of the U.S. Air Force and Navy not a match for what the Persian Midget can put up? And did he care about international opinion when he started the Iraq war?
--I can't believe that this president would not consider Iran's nuclear program, and his promises to use it, to be for real. The man may have been an idiot, but he had plenty of brilliant men feeding him quality intel.
--It is possible that Bush didn't care, but come on--after nuking Israel, Ahmadinejad would certainly lock his sights on DC or Houston. He couldn't truly just blow that off.
--It is possible, and even likely, that Bush wanted to spare Iranian "civilians" from the effects of an airstrike, because we certainly see this in Iraq today, but he still went to war in Iraq (a half-donkeyed war he didn't really want to win, perhaps, but a war nonetheless), and that war has killed some Iraqi so-called "civilians", after all.
Bush's Saudi royal connections (and the whole Bush family actually) are infamous and amply documented all over the web and in print as well. It is completely feasible that this "friendship" is what tipped the balance in favor of no attack on Iran. Remember that Bush did not attack Saudi Arabia in 2001, even when it quickly became clear that that Nazi state was directly responsible for 9/11. Instead, he attacked two scapegoat Muslim Nazi countries. Sparing Iran could just be a continuation of that.
Chaimfan