At last, some good news from Iran

US President Barack Obama said on Sunday that a military attack against Iran was fraught with risks and that he preferred a diplomatic resolution to dispel the war clouds gathering over the Gulf. It seems that the threat of a US-led attack on Iran has eased, at least for now.

The Western media say Teheran's nuclear program is to blame for the standoff between the West and Iran. After the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report suspecting Iran of developing nuclear weapons, the US and European Union member countries imposed more economic sanctions on Iran, and asked other countries not to buy oil from Iran to "force Teheran to halt its nuclear plan". Iran has responded by conducting military drills and threatening to blockade the Gulf of Hormuz.

But neither Iran nor the US has uttered the word "war".

This shows the main cause of the tension is not Iran's nuclear program but the domestic politics of the US, especially the 2012 elections, in which not only the president but also members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senators will be elected.

Democrats and Republicans take on each other to garner the support of voters, of which the Jewish lobby is an important part. Traditionally, American Jews have supported the Democrats. But this time, they seem unhappy with Obama, whose new approach to deal with Iran and solve the Palestinian problem has been opposed by the Benjamin Netanyahu government in Israel.

This presents Republicans the chance of winning over the Jewish lobby to their side, and the scramble to do so is on. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made that obvious when he said: "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon; if you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon."

The toughest American sanction against Iran, however, is not what the Obama administration truly wanted, for it was worried that a tough embargo on Iranian oil would cause oil prices to skyrocket and eventually curb US economic recovery. Instead the toughest sanction against Iran was more of a compromise by the Obama administration under pressure from the Capitol Hill. But the deal has given the Obama administration much flexibility in implementing the sanction.

The sanction against Iran is part of the US National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, signed on Dec 31, 2011. In other words, the Pentagon would have found itself devoid of funds had Obama not signed the act. Besides, the schedule of the sanctions tightly followed the progress of the election campaign.

The sanction has also been necessitated by the US' political needs in the Middle East. An open secret in international politics is that the IAEA relied heavily on US and Israeli intelligence agencies for information on Iran's nuclear programs, which means its report was greatly influenced.

The report came at a time when the US needed it most. The Netanyahu administration in Israel was moving away from the US and Palestine had applied for formal UN membership despite Washington's opposition. In short, the report came when the US was being troubled by conflicting sides in the Middle East.

The US' problems were solved, to a large extent, as soon as the IAEA report was issued drawing the world's attention to Iran. This is not to say that the US intervened in the publication of the report.

Iran's internal politics has also contributed to the conflict. Iran has become more conservative and tough after the 2009 election; its internal power struggle, especially between the Consultative Assembly and the government, has intensified, too. To maintain unity in the country, the Consultative Assembly often takes tougher measures than the government. In fact, it was the Consultative Assembly members that first threatened to blockade the Gulf of Hormuz and cut oil supply to the EU.

Also, Iranians generally believe that the US is not willing to fight a hard war in the Middle East after nine years' painful experience in Iraq. No wonder, Iranian politicians tend to act tough in a bid to be seen as defenders of national interests - as opposed to becoming cowards in case of a compromise.

Therefore, even though the US-Iranian dispute seems to have intensified, it is unlikely that either side would trigger a war. After all, they have too many interests to consider. Of course, irrational acts cannot be ruled out in US election year. But the US is likely to intensify its threats, instead of starting a real war, because no side wants it or can afford it.

The author is director of the Center of Middle East Studies, affiliated to the China Institute of International Studies.

(China Daily 02/08/2012 page9)