What CENTCOM chief General David Petraeus said regarding America's contingency plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites is highly worrisome. The US claim that Iran had ambitions to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear energy programme has been consistently denied by Tehran.
After Washington's tall claims regarding Iraq being in possession of weapons of mass destruction turned out to plain lies, aimed at gaining the world support to attack the country, few outside the Western world would accept Washington's allegations against Iran.
The statement is predicated by "if negotiations falter between the Islamic republic and Western nations," it is alarming nevertheless. The attack could turn out to be a precursor to an all-out war; similar to the one the US fought in Iraq, with unpredictable consequences.
This would divide the Security Council as the US has failed to convince that the Iranian programme is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. On Thursday, Moscow clearly stated that it had no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Any military adventure against Iran by Washington would further damage the US image in the Muslim community all over the world.
With Washington completely ignoring Israeli stockpiles of nuclear weapons while attempting to destroy the nuclear capability of a Muslim country, would be widely interpreted to be discriminatory, unjust and yet another case of targeting a Muslim country. This would give a boost to extremist tendencies and provide the terrorists another cause celebre.
An attack on Iran's nuclear installations could force Iran to take recourse to reprisals against Israel and even attack oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Scare, thus created, could lead to speculation and suddenly escalate petrol prices, which will have a fall out on the world economy and delay the economic recovery. The attack could particularly turn out to be destabilising for the regional countries, including Pakistan, which have large sections of population having an especially soft corner for Iran. Iran, too, needs to show flexibility.
While many in the Muslim world and outside would oppose any aggression against it, this might not be so in the case of some of its neighbouring Arab countries that are increasingly wary of Iran's nuclear programme. What is more, some believe that Iran's nuclear clout would escalate sectarian tensions in their own countries.
Iran has to realise why some of its old supporters such as Russia and China joined with Germany, Britain, France and the United States, who have been involved in long-running nuclear negotiations with Iran, in voting in favour of an International Atomic Energy Agency resolution demanding a halt to Iran's enrichment work.
Iran's traditional friends Russia and China had suggested a middle way, calling on Iran to agree to a uranium swap deal "consensus" on a UN proposal on nuclear fuel supplies for its research reactor. Iran was called upon to agree to exchange 75 percent of its low enriched uranium for nuclear fuel rods, thereby reducing its stockpile and limiting its ability to escalate a weapons programme.
The suggested conversion was to be made in Russia and France. Iran seemed to agree, then reneged, putting forth another proposal and giving the West until the end of January to accept it. There is a need, under the circumstances, both on the part of Washington and Tehran to find a peaceful middle way.
Imposing a fourth set of sanctions on Iran, as is being envisaged by the US, won't help. The US, Britain and France being permanent Security Council members can impose unilateral sanctions, but they need Russia and China to get them through the 15-member Council. And trade moving through China and most likely Russia, as well as a host of other nations can subvert any Western sanctions.
An attack on Iran's nuclear sites is no option either. Hillary Clinton has done well by backing away from the ultimatum by maintaining on Monday: "We've avoided using the term deadline ourselves because we want to keep the door to dialogue open. But we've also made it clear that we can't continue to wait." A peaceful solution based on pragmatism is the best way out.