Iran's N-bomb hits a dead end

It is no news that the Bush administration is keeping a close watch on Iran.

Not only was Iran mentioned in Bush's now infamous "Axis of Evil" speech, but Condoleezza Rice, the new secretary of state, singled out Iran as one of the six remaining outposts of tyranny when appearing in front of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Speculators believe that America's intelligence teams have already identified several Iranian nuclear sites. According to Seymour Hersh, an investigative reporter for The New Yorker magazine, the Bush administration is taking steps and making plans to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities.

Hersh makes it clear the Bush administration has not assigned a high utility value to the Franco-German-British effort.

Emerging picture

The emerging picture is worrying not only because the anticipated policy is outrageously cowboyish, but also because Iran's mullahs may decide not to take the Americans seriously.

Doubting Bush's credibility at this stage right after he has promised to "spend" his newly acquired political capital seems a bit naïve. Many political pundits argue that America at this point doesn't have the military capacity to venture into another military confrontation. Such an assumption is dangerous, and also false.

No one is talking about a full invasion of Iran though one may be in the plan rather, the Pentagon is looking at a surgical strike (combining on-ground intelligence with laser guided missile technology).

Bush has made it clear that while he would like to improve his diplomatic record, he will not negotiate with the Europeans, or anyone else, on America's national interests.

Particularly given how Bush has interpreted his electoral victory, it seems unreasonable to assume that he will yield to external pressures when pursuing national objectives.

This urge to be unbound is frankly not all that surprising. America after all and in striking contrast to others has the necessary resources to push its independent agenda. The point is Tehran must take signals coming out of Washington with utmost seriousness.

The idea of playing Europe against America will not work. The Iraq example is instructive. Saddam Hussain gravely miscalculated the extent of American commitment to reforming the Middle East, and Washington's preparedness to use even military means to reverse the proliferation of WMD.

In a recent statement the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder rejected a military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis, but his objections fell on deaf ears in Washington.

European reservation, even outright opposition, to a hardline American position on Iran will not convince a president with both the political will and the necessary stomach to send the American military machine into action.

Iran's best strategy in the light of growing American pressure is to cooperate with the Europeans and strike a favourable deal while the bargain option is still available.

The second best option is to use diplomacy to engage Washington directly, or perhaps through European allies, and convince a critical mass that a tactical nuclear balance between Iran and Israel would be the best short-term solution and the fastest road towards lasting regional stability and a nuclear-free Middle East.

Worst option

The worst option at this point is for Tehran to assume that Washington is bluffing, and use European opposition to a military option as a counterbalance to American pressure. It won't work.

If push comes to shove, Bush doesn't believe he needs to ask anyone other than the American people on how and in what manner to pursue and protect America's interests worldwide.

International credibility stems from the political ability to act, and from a track record. Bush at this point has both. The real decision Tehran has to make at this point is whether the N-bomb is worth an American surgical strike.

Borut Grgic is the director of the Ljubljana-based Institute for Strategic Studies.