Iran’s ambiguous response to the latest incentives package and proposal by the so called ‎P-5 group of powers, has once again raised concern about the fate of Iran’s nuclear ‎dossier.‎

These recent events herald that the tight knot of the Iranian nuclear crises will not be ‎untied any time soon. Officials in Tehran at least have not demonstrated any signs that ‎they intend to change their nuclear policy and insist on continuing their current strategy ‎on the same old path. By taking conflicting positions, they present ambiguous responses ‎which lack any clarity regarding a short-term or an indefinite freeze on enrichment ‎activities. In this regard, contrary to the perception of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad ‎and his nuclear negotiations team, the freeze-for-freeze formula is not intended to be the ‎subject of talks between the two sides, but a preliminary starting point for the actual talks.‎

As Ali Larijani (Iran’s former chief nuclear negotiator) recently said, Iran is making a big ‎demand for the restart of a deal over the nuclear issue. The extension of a security ‎guarantee by the United States and the acceptance of Iran as the regional superpower in ‎the strategic region of the Middle East and in the balance of power in the region and the ‎world in general are among its demands.‎

The resultant and conflicting pressures and realities have in practice prevented the ‎emergence of catastrophic sanctions against Iran, and while the gradual expansion and ‎deepening of the existing sanctions will continue and will undoubtedly present Iran with ‎new problems, they will not have the short-term deterrence effect on Iran’s nuclear ‎activities.‎

At the same time, there are no short-term prospects for military action, and the military ‎threats and counter-threats that pop-up on both sides are being used primarily for ‎propaganda purposes in the realm of psychological warfare.‎

Iran’s resistance to international demands paves the way for strengthening the American ‎position which calls for stronger action against Iran. The US now holds a powerful card ‎in its hands in the form of its argument that all soft diplomatic efforts have failed to ‎produce any tangible results and that they have exhausted them. So it would expect its ‎partners to join it in imposing harsher diplomatic measures.‎

The next diplomatic offensive by the US would be to focus on Iran’s Central Bank by ‎enacting new sanctions against it. The groundwork for this has already been laid in both ‎houses of US Congress. While this may take a few months to complete, it will certainly ‎have a devastating impact on Iran’s afflicted economy.‎

Russian and China on the other hand seem to prefer to continue controlling this unsettled ‎situation so that they can extract even more benefits from the parties.‎

At the other side of this battlefield, key Iranian decision makers of the nuclear issue feel ‎comfortable that their resistance has so far been successful and believe that there will be ‎no war or decisive sanction against Iran till the end of George Bush’s presidency. They ‎believe that while the current sanctions are painful, they are the price that has to be paid ‎for the stability and security of the regime, its prestige in the Islamic world and the ‎foreign confrontation against it.‎

So buying time provides the opportunity and security that is necessary to pursue the ‎nuclear program to the point of no return. According to the proposal that Iran made to the ‎P-5, talks with the West could continue for years. Since it would take some six months ‎for the new US president to chose his political, military and security team, Iran will have ‎about a year’s time to reach the finish line of the nuclear marathon that it is running, ‎during which time it may convince the Americans to provide recognition to the Islamic ‎regime, stop it from weakening it and finally get their consent to be a partner in the ‎security and decisions over this region.‎

But playing with time is not always successful and works only if it remains manageable ‎and under control. It can certainly not continue forever. So, the current success in ‎directing the nuclear issue to avoid holding talks may not be sustainable and will work ‎only for a limited period of time.‎