Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) having the tightest and verifiable scrutiny arrangement in Iran to keep an eye on Iran’s nuclear activities, Mr Bush is fretting and fuming expressing dissatisfaction on IAEA’s as well as European partners’ work and is demanding to adopt some tangible measures to neutralize Iran’s ever hankering after nuclear technology for whatever avowed purposes.

One fails to see the veracity of so much concern that the US has shown over Iran whereas Iran is only one of about 56 countries in the world who have access to nuclear technology. There are about 440 commercial nuclear reactors operating in 31 countries; while additionally 284 other research reactors are operating in all continents of the world.

Iran is signatory of the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1968 and all its nuclear activities are covered by (NPT) except one fault that could be ignored conveniently had ulterior motives not clouded the wisdom and acumen of the US policy-makers.

According to the NPT, Iran is allowed to enrich uranium, however, it was to intimate IAEA for doing so. Iran has uranium enrichment plants at Ispahan and another at Natanz, which came under review a couple of years ago. According to Iran, enrichment activity is essential to discount its dependency on foreign nations for providing fuel to its reactors.

It is quite understandable why Iran has kept some of its nuclear activities away from limelight. When we glance over the history of Iran-US relations and constant attempts of the US to bully Iran and punish all companies working for Iran, it is logical that Iran should have kept uranium enrichment activities hidden. When work on Buisher Nuclear Plant was started, it was Siemens, a German firm, who was asked to do the construction work.

Under the US pressure, the firm backed out and left the work in the middle. A lot of resources had already been invested in the project; therefore, an alternative was worked out. A Russian firm was contacted and the work restarted in 1995. Since then the US is doing everything possible within its means to force Russia out of the contract. Russia so far has withstood the pressure.

The project, however, is behind the schedule by many years. Guess what might have happened if the enrichment activity at Natanz was made public to invite wrath from the US so early.

On quite flimsy grounds, Iran is being asked in the Western media not to pursue its nuclear ambitions. One such argument is that being world’s second largest OPEC exporter sitting on huge oil and gas resources Iran should not need any nuclear plant.

The argument sounds ludicrous when one comes to know that the US has more than 100 nuclear power plants as compared with Russia who has about 30 such plants. Whereas, both are substantial oil producing countries; the US being the third largest oil producing and Russia non-OPEC oil exporting country. There are four avaricious dimensions of the US-Iran nuclear stand-off, which help us put the problem in real perspective.

Firstly, it seems the US policy-makers have never been able to shake off  Vietnam syndrome over Iran since the US Embassy debacle of 1979. Taking of the US Embassy cannot be justified; however, Iranian nation considered it a victory because Americans were the chief supporters of Shah. If we draw a parallel with French revolution of 1789, it was Iranian Islamic revolution and was less bloody.

Temper was high and in the heat of things, some inappropriate things took place; and such acts in history are generally tolerated and ignored. This is how nations grow and prosper and take directions learning from their mistakes. Iran has learnt a lot and since then it has behaved responsibly internationally, however, the US has not forgotten it, or so to speak, die-hard warmongers at Pentagon and State Department have not forgotten it: ‘how could a small nation behave this way and remain un-punished?’

The US has been doing everything to topple Islamists’ Government in Tehran even to the point of openly allocating budgetary amount, in contravention to international law, to realize its objective.  Secondly, the nuclear stand-off has its own peculiar economic dimensions. There is an element of acute urgency in the tone and demands of Mr Bush to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for economic sanctions.

Iran had challenged the dollar hegemony along with Iraq and North Korea and demanded to deal with International Oil Futures in Euro. After the invasion of Iraq, it is back in dollar camp but Iran is going to establish a Euro-dominated International Oil Bourse in Tehran whose final date is set to be March 26, 2006. Once it is able to do that the dollar hegemony will be seriously dented.

The US loss will run into billions of dollars per years. Rather a substitute course in oil dealings will be open. Moreover, looking at the international scene with Venezuela, Cuba, Malaysia, Indonesia etc to follow the suit dollar stability seems quite bleak. The US cannot allow this to happen. This amounts to challenging the supremacy of a superpower whose real power base is being threatened. That is why Mr Bush is not ruling out even military strikes on Iran because Iran must be stopped from going anti-dollar in International Oil Dealings.

There have earlier been similar attempts at substitute oil Bourse in the past  by  both China and Russian. However this is for the first time that the second best OPEC oil exporting country is taking the initiative and if couple of other oil exporting countries join Iran then the dollar supremacy is doomed. Initially diplomatic efforts will be made as long as China and Russian will side with the US and its allies.

Otherwise, the US will go alone along with the abstract coalition of the wiling and indulge in aerial strikes. Of course, its regional and international implications are tremendous; then the stakes are also high. It is the choice between the dollar supremacy and the destruc-tion of a third world country and the world peace.

Thirdly, the Islamic Iran has come of age and matured diplomati-lly,  economically,  socially and institutionally. It has been realized that strong Iran is not a threat to its neighbours. Islamic polity is paying its dividends and an atmosphere of goodwill and  understan-ding has been created in the region. This, however, does not go well with the regional agenda of the US. A weak Iran is a must to establish Israel’s hegemony in the region. Further, strong Iran with Shia dominated government in Baghdad is a sure recipe for quick departure of US forces from the region and consequently diminishing of its influence in the region.

Fourthly, classic Judo-Christian mistrust of an Islamic country is also at play. No assurance whatsoever on part of Iran seems plausible to the Western powers whose judgement is severely compromised by their vision of the Islamic world which they consider as barbaric, unprincipled, dogmatic and inhumane. By striking Iran’s nuclear installation the US will be plunging the whole region and the world peace into a state of turmoil and chaos. No person with scruples will ever think of doing such a thing for money. Then the so-called national interests are not governed by scruples.