A Kunstler or fan could say "I want us to bomb Iran" because I know that to do so would, to borrow a phrase from the Illuminatus! Trilogy, immanentize the eschaton of the world Kunstler wants. Or because he thinks it will delay it (I suspect Richard's right here.) Or because I don't want to do so.
"Huh?" you say. Yeah, because I don't want to do so; because by drawing attention to the gambit, it forces a resolution of it, which is one thing the Bush folks could be doing right now, its game of selective ratcheting up the tension and easing it (which also happens to be a standard cult trick).
Of course the risk lies in nobody - including your adversary, in this case the Iranians- getting the irony of it all and taking you at your word.
I think though in another way Richard and possibly Kunstler don't get it; quoting Richard:
But his admirers see the collapse of our civilization as a good thing, because they tend to have low-level jobs in retail or food service and the leveling of the Western standard of living would presumably force the fancy people to give up their SUVs and join them on the streets on bicycles.
I don't consider myself an "admirer" of Kunstler or Pianka, but I do generally agree with the thesis that we're screwing ourselves by raping the earth and overpopulating; we're treating the earth like what bacteria do to a corpse; metaphorically speaking, eventually there will only be bones left - and no bacteria.
This isn't "good," and so there ought to be ways to wisely manage this. But it takes ways of forming new social structures that are anathema to much of what humanity has done in the past 5,000 years. It need not mean a return to the Dark Ages.
In the mean time we do indeed run the risk of wars, advocates of wars, and people who don't really advocate wars but may be too clever for our own good.