Tamkin Jafarov, commentator of Trend's Persian desk
Despite that still the U.S. plans contain 'warning military actions' in connection with the nuclear program of Iran, unlike Israel, official Washington considers diplomatic and economic sanctions more effective.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the U.S. gives preference to diplomacy on Iran's nuclear program. According to him, economic sanctions proved to be much more effective than expected. Earlier, at his meeting with the U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked to consider a 'military option' to stop Iran's nuclear program.
For several years, the subject of disputes has been a question whether war or sanctions are capable to stop the Iranian nuclear program, particularly uranium enrichment project.
The essence of the issue of Iran's nuclear program is that Iran and the U.S. can solve this problem in favor of both sides. Either the U.S. should start a war over this issue, or accept the solution, which will benefit both sides. Most likely, the U.S. gives preference to the latter. Most experts believe that under these conditions, 'military option' is not beneficial for the U.S. According to them, the U.S. refrains from attacks on Iran because of the fact that today Washington is spending huge funds in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also because of numerous problems during the attack on this country and the reproofs of the international community. In addition, the United States is well aware of Iran's high authority in the region, and therefore do not want to re-encounter with the above-mentioned problems.
Indeed, these factors are the cause of U.S.'s refraining from attacking on Iran. However, there are other factors, the essence of which Iran and the West understand. Despite that in recent years, Iran has been stating great achievements in the field of military technology, some experts approach these claims with distrust, noting that most of these statements are propaganda, and military sector of Iran can not develop enough, considering sanctions against this country.
In this case, swelling the term 'Iranian threat' and the theory that Iran is a potential threat to the international community becomes obvious. In this case, the idea of necessity of war appears under a big question.
Another reason for U.S.'s refraining from attack on Iran is that the United States can not fully predict the response of the Iranian people to the attack. U.S. does not want a possible war to turn into a partisan battle and became infinite. Failure in Iran, given the failure of the country in Iraq and Afghanistan, can be very costly for the U.S. Western countries and the United States would use 'the possibility of a military option' to put pressure on Iran, but the date of implementation of this option remains unknown.
Still it is impossible to say something about the possible results of the discussions between Iran and the '5 +1' countries (permanent members of UN Security Council and Germany), because still there is no consensus on the topic of discussions. In the package of proposals presented by Iran to the West, Tehran demonstrates its considerable prestige in the region, and Western countries demand Iran to continue discussions over its nuclear program. Iran is considered the power capable to create numerous problems for the U.S. in the region. Despite that the Iranian nuclear program is a cause for serious concerns in both countries, it is the only issue that could forward the two countries to joint strategic discussions.
Discussions between Iran and '5 +1' countries were suspended in 2009 after the IAEA Council of Governors adopted a resolution against Iran. A new round of talks between Iran and '5+1', which have not been conducted for more than a year, has been scheduled for mid-November. In the discussions the '5 +1' countries will be presented by EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Catherine Margaret Ashton.