LONDON, 13 February 2005 — Nobody sees military action as the best way to tame Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons ambitions, but as the rhetoric heats up, mutual miscalculation could suck Tehran and Washington into an unpredictable showdown.

European-sponsored talks have yet to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, which could help it build a bomb. With postwar Iraq in turmoil, the world is jittery about any fresh instability in the oil-supplying Gulf region.

While US President George W. Bush has emphasized diplomacy in dealing with Iran, he has not ruled out a military option and Vice President Dick Cheney has said Israel might act alone. “There’s a 50-50 chance of an airstrike,” said Ali Ansari, an Iran expert at Scotland’s St Andrew’s University.

“This not because of deliberate policy in the Pentagon or Iran, but the tensions, the sensitivities, the paranoia are so high that the potential for slip-sliding into something is very high,” he said, noting the absence of direct communication between the diplomatically estranged protagonists.

Other analysts say the chances of a US or Israeli attack are slim, but Iran could face UN sanctions if the European Union negotiations led by Britain, France and Germany fail.

“Military action is not an option. It is technically possible for the United States, either with the Israelis or on their own, but it is not wise,” said Mustafa Alani, a security analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. “The involvement in Iraq has tied US hands for any major conflict with Iran.”

For now Washington is letting the EU-3 pursue efforts to get Iran, which says its nuclear program has only peaceful purposes, to scrap potentially weapons-related work like uranium enrichment in return for trade deals and other incentives.

But US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week the Europeans should join Washington in threatening Iran with referral to the UN Security Council if it fails to agree.

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami dented European hopes when he said on Wednesday that his country would never give up the quest for nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment.

Analysts say UN sanctions could include a halt to peaceful nuclear cooperation, a ban on foreign investment, reduced diplomatic ties or travel curbs on Iranian leaders.

Sanctions on Iran’s oil exports seem unlikely in view of the potential impact on world oil prices and the global economy.

Washington bars US firms from operating in investment-hungry Iran. It has put pressure on those evading the ban through foreign subsidiaries and wants European firms to fall into line.

US giants such as Halliburton and General Electric Co., who have used subsidiaries to get round the embargo, have said they will do no new business in Iran. Britain’s oil major BP has also said US pressure is keeping it out.

Washington’s tough line may reinforce EU-3 diplomacy by brandishing a stick in Tehran’s face, but any deal would also need at least US endorsement, if not direct involvement.

But it refuses to engage with what Rice calls a “loathed” regime. Bush has vowed to stand with Iranians who want liberty.

Ansari said such talk of regime change was dangerous and unrealistic, arguing that the US refusal to recognize the reality of Iranian clerical rule undercut serious diplomacy.

Khatami, speaking on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution, promised a “burning hell” for any aggressor.

The lame duck president steps down after elections in June, and a power struggle among conservative clerics could influence nuclear policy much more than the outgoing reformist’s words.

Ansari said pragmatists such as ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani would be keener than Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or Revolutionary Guard hard-liners to cut a deal.

European diplomats say many of Iran’s verbal blasts, while unhelpful to EU-3 diplomacy, are for domestic consumption and mask its commitment to real negotiations behind the scenes.

They say the EU negotiations have no time limit and enjoy US support. Any talk of UN sanctions is premature and military action is not on the table at all, they add.

But Gary Samore, a nonproliferation expert who is director of studies at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies, said no compromise was in sight in the talks. “I think Iran’s preference is to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. They have been working on that for 20 year and it’s a deeply seated desire on the part of the political elite.

“What is holding them back is fear — the possibility that the big powers would gang up on them with political or economic sanctions, or even force,” Samore said.

He said Washington had never had much appetite for invading Iran, a member of Bush’s “Axis of Evil”, along with prewar Iraq and North Korea. Pyongyang said on Thursday it had nuclear arms.