Now that the US military has supreme authority in Afghanistan and Iraq, and has presence in Central Asia, it has the possibility of exerting heavy presence on Iran, once a strategic partner of the US. Iran’s attempts to develop nuclear capability, ostensibly for civilian purposes, is not a new phenomenon. During the days of the rule of late Shah, an order was placed to a German company for the construction of a large nuclear power plant. At that time US had not objected to this project because Shah of Iran was a friend of US. Nevertheless, the construction work was interrupted because of the revolution. Only several years later to the chagrin of the US, Russia became the principal source for developing Iranian nuclear capability that included a regeneration plant that could produce weapons grade uranium and plutonium.

Immediately after the war in Iraq eyes were turned on Iran as one of the potential US target; saber rattling was heard loud and clear. Iran accepted to put all of its installation under the control of appropriate nuclear agency and Russia assured US that it would not allow any weapons technology transfer.

The possibility of a US attack on Iran has rescinded substantially may be for several reasons:

1. ·        Iran’s nuclear program is supported by the entire nation irrespective of political tendencies. Too much criticism and an act of aggression on this account will bring the Iranian nation together against the US. As moderate Iranians are seeking a dialogue with the US such a move would undercut dissent against the conservative Shiite rule and weaken their campaign to topple the system.
2. ·        Iran is a pivotal country in the region extending from the Gulf to Central Asia and Caucasus. With US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, US would like a friendly regime in Iran not an enemy. Iran is a candidate to play a useful role for US interests in the region as it did under the Shah during the Cold War. Particularly after the coolness that developed in Turkish-US relations during and after the Iraq war, the need for friendly Iran has become even greater.
3. ·        Last but not least is the influence of Iran on Shiites that constitute more than two thirds of the population of Iraq. Britain & US have not yet succeeded in pacifying the people of Iraq. Discontent with the shortages in Iraq is on the increase and the occupying powers are blamed. An attack on Iran, if it cannot be justified in the eyes of the Shiites in Iraq, would mean even greater unrest among the Shiites of Iraq even if Iran may not provide open support.
4. ·        An additional consideration may be that for US it may be easier to fight a war against a mismatched enemy; but establishing a post-war regime is extremely difficult. Transition to a government system that could provide good governance and peace to the people in Iran dwarfs the difficulties in Iraq.

For these reasons the US policy, while supporting dissent in Iran no longer talks about military solutions, and US seems to have shifted its attention to problems in Africa where prospects of success would also help the administrations election campaign among the coloured voters, while trying to overcome the impediments for peace in the Middle East and law and order in Iraq.