So who is going to blink first?

By now, we are supposed to be used to all the excitement of living dangerously in the Gulf with pariah states, or hegemonic menacing ones with grandiose plans and inclination for domination and bullying. From Saddam Hussain's gambles and miscalculations to Iran's ambitions to be the anchor and the major power in the region and beyond.

I guess we have learned to live dangerously in this part of the world. What makes our region so exciting and fragile at the same time is a combination of the abundance of oil and gas and the lack of an indigenous balance of power. These factors tempt regional hegemons - Saddam Hussain in the past, and Iran now - to jockey for power and flex their muscles. This is done at the expense of our small littoral states on the Arabian side of the Gulf as we lack the power to deter such hegemons.

For the past three decades, the three countries that caused wars, tensions and upset the regional stability in this part of the world were Saddam Hussain's Iraq, Iran and the US. The latter is in the region as a protector of the Gulf Cooperation Council states against aggression and belligerence of the former in the absence of an indigenous balance of power.

Most relevant

The Gulf is the most relevant and strategically indispensible region that provides the world with two-fifths of its oil needs and has two-thirds of the world's known oil reserves with spare capacity to boot.

Lately, the déja vu of the risks faced by us were magnified by Iran. The Iranian threat to restrict the movement of shipping in the Arabian Gulf by closing the Strait of Hormuz and plans to dig tens of thousands of graves for any Western invaders created a surcharged atmosphere in the region. It is now being fuelled by Iran's belligerent attitude towards Israel and the US presence in the Gulf, Iraq and beyond. Iran has taken such an offensive posture in response to the US and Israel's threats to launch military attacks against the country for refusing to stop its uranium enrichment programme. They are also calling on Iran to adhere to three UN Security Council resolutions.

The scenario is eerily reminiscent of Saddam Hussain's miscalculations when he invaded Kuwait under the false premise that the West will tolerate his wanton aggression and turn a blind eye to his misdeeds. Does Iran really believe that the international community will be a silent spectator if it carries out its threat of blocking the Strait of Hormuz at this critical time when the price of oil is approaching the $150 mark for a barrel?

There is coercive diplomacy at play to defuse the Iranian situation. It is a carrot and stick policy. Last month, the G5+1 made a generous offer to Iran and it was soon followed by stiff European Union (EU) sanctions. To put further pressure on Iran, the Americans leaked a story of a military drill that was conducted by Israel across the Mediterranean. Nearly 100 Israeli Air Force fighter planes took part in the exercise to prepare for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran wasted no time in upping the ante by insisting that any attack on its nuclear facilities would be treated as a declaration of war and would target Israel and the US in the region along with the strategic assets nearby. Such an act would create mayhem in the whole region and in the world. Naturally, we in the GCC states are feeling like helpless bystanders with little room to manoeuvre. In short, if war breaks out before US President George W. Bush leaves office in early January, then it will be a nightmare of epic proportions for the whole region.

No wonder no one wants another war in the region, neither the Americans nor the Israelis. For that matter, the Iranians, the GCC states and the people of the region, who will suffer the most, are against any sort of a conflict.

A few days ago, the Iranians submitted the long awaited response to the G5+1 incentive package. This was termed as a "constructive'' response. We will now have to wait and watch to judge it. Nonetheless, it is a positive development.

In light of North Korea's decision to disband its nuclear programme, this leaves Iran as the only member of Bush's "axis of evil". Iran has softened its tone by arguing that the incentive package is interesting and all issues are subject to negotiations. There are also talks that as a gesture of goodwill, Iran may freeze its uranium enrichment for six weeks. Furthermore, the Americans have signalled that they too are willing to negotiate with Iran and have expressed their desire to start a mission in Tehran. Iran has welcomed this move.

In this respect, the remarks made by the US Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen assumes significance. Mullen, after his return from Israel, called for dialogue and more diplomacy. What was remarkable in Mullen's statement was that he was forthright when he said that the opening of a third front in a war with Iran "would be extremely stressful... and challenging".

We have two lame duck governments in the US and Israel. We have a country which is bent on being the dominant power in the region. The question which every body keeps asking is: Will there or won't there be a war. We cannot rule out a military strike as long as Bush is in the White House. David Miliband, a British journalist, wrote recently, "so how will this situation play itself out with the shadow of war looming. Then who will blink first and bite the bullet?"

After the infamous Cuban missiles crisis at the height of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union where the world got so close to a nuclear show down, Dean Rusk, a former US secretary of state, coined a statement which has become a major cliché in confrontations. He said: "We were eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked."

We do not know who will blink first. But we hope one of them will, and we all could avert the devastating war that no one wants.

Dr Abdullah Al Shayji is a Professor of International Relations and the Head of the American Studies Unit- Kuwait University.