The sensitive, special and dangerous conditions of Iran these days are the subject of different comments. Different government factions and those in the opposition use the same words to describe the conditions of the country. I will forego using the term “sensitive” because the condition of the country has been serious during the last thirty years and from the perspective of the officials of the Islamic republic enemies have throughout been planning conspiracies and the conditions of the country have never been normal.

But the increased speculation about the possibility of an American military attack on Iran is the reason why the conditions in Iran are labeled “special.” After the US attacked Iraq, the specter of war has been over the horizon of Iran. During the last seven years this shadow has fluctuated from imminent to possible, sometimes appearing so heavy that it was feared that the American navy would at any time cross into Iran’s territorial waters while at others this possibility faded so much that some even thought an American embassy was on the verge of being opened in Tehran. But the recent harsher tone of American officials, particularly the threat of the Joint Chief of Staff and the consequential posturing of Iranian leadership and senior military officials has created this image that the war cry will soon be heard. But is a war really coming?

While it may appear that a limited military option is more serious than in the past, but tracking the events indicates that such a possibility in the near future is an exaggeration. In fact, what is happening at the practical level is at the pre-war phase during which the battle saber is lifted as a serious threat so that in the shadow of the psychological and media warfare the opposite side is forced to retreat. This threatening atmosphere is the complement and supporting policy of the sanctions aimed to produce the desired result. The West and their allies hope that the new round of UN Security Council sanctions and the multi-lateral and unilateral sanctions of the United States and the European Union, will force Iranian authorities to suspend uranium enrichment and gradually force it to change their current attitude of defiance and confrontation of the world order to understanding and detente. The center of decision making regarding pulling the war trigger on Iran is in the hands of the United States. Even though Israel is showing more impatience and its threats against Iran are more open, it is not and has not been in a position to independently attack Iran without the green light from the US. The Obama administration does not approve of war with Iran for various reasons. He won the presidency on the call for peace and the withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. He is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Going to war is contrary to his traditional perspective and his political and personal views. Congressional elections are coming up and Obama has an important role in the outcome of the Democratic Party race. Because of the dominating view in opposition to war in the social body of the Democratic Party, the smell of gunpowder over the skies of Iran will be a gift to Republicans to take away the majority that their rival currently enjoys. The United States is currently preoccupied with two incomplete wars in the region both of which have a growing opposition inside and outside the country. And even though the greater part of US troops is withdrawing from Iraq, its forces are on the increase in Afghanistan. At a point when these two projects have not reached a satisfactory phase, starting another war and turning the crises stricken Middle East region into greater instability does not appear reasonable. The conclusions of intelligence and other specialized agencies in the West and the UN is that Iran is at least two years away from the “break out” point and access to nuclear weapons. So there is no immediate urgency at hand. The deep global economic crisis particularly in the US is another issue that has taken priority of the policies of Obama’s administration. The importance of this priority is such that it greatly reduces the possibility of taking greater risks. In fact, desisting the use of force and the increase in patience in using diplomacy was inherited by Obama from Bush. During its last period the Bush administration shut the military option as it rejected the advice of Dick Cheney and his allies, adapted the policy of pursuing intense and aggressive diplomacy. Yet one should not forget that desires and wishes are not always the decisive elements in political calculations. Sometimes events force decisions that are against the initial wishes and desires. The Obama administration has no desire to engage in a war with Iran. But events can take such a course that it will have no choice but to do just that, just as McKinley was forced to intervene in the Spanish war with Cuba against his wish. Madison was forced to into a military conflict with Britain in 1812. Similarly, Woodrow Wilson entered the First World War despite his hesitation to do so.

The adventurism of the principal players in Tehran and the movement towards the break out point in Iran’s nuclear program are issues that may break Obama’s patience who in comparison to George Bush enjoys a far greater legitimacy and authority in striking Iran militarily. As I explained above, however, such a possibility is unlikely at least until the fourth month of the second half of 2011.   The foreign policy of Obama’s administration has been to use the UN and pursue a multilateral policy. He has till now refrained from pursuing a unilateral approach. So a military action by him would require the support of other members of the international community and also the preparation of the UN Security Council for this. One sign of imminent war is an increase in diplomatic activity to gain the support of other countries and to invoke article 42 of the UN Charter, none of which are visible on the international scene or at the UN.

At this time and more than ever before, the Obama administration prefers to use the threat of war so as to increase the effectiveness of the sanctions against Iran. At the same time, The US wishes to show Iran to take the threat of war seriously and be aware of America’s military might. American officials believe their Iranian counterparts do not have an accurate picture of American. The Iranians believe that the US is in a weak position and that it cannot militarily engage with Iran. At the same time, they believe they can provide deterrence by shifting the war theater outside their frontiers and activating terrorist activities. In fact, the Obama administration strives to expose the risks and dangers of the erroneous calculations of Iran’s government and tangibly warn Iran not to take US might lightly.

In addition to the US administration, there are other groups in the American political landscape who are sounding the war drum. These groups are mostly affiliated with the right and the Republican Party who view their using the military strike card and accusing Obama of weakness against Iran as an important element for their victory in the upcoming Congressional elections. In reality, their policies are more for domestic consumption rather than indicate the imminence of war.

The oppressive and violent behavior of the Iranian regime and the loss of its legitimacy on the international scene are other factors that have resulted in the greater psychological war. Anti-war movements have now been weakened and some of them have been distancing themselves from taking positions in line with the Islamic Republic. The influence of groups opposing an American war with Iran are weaker in the US today in comparison with the past. This is because of the violent extensive violence and killing of opponents and protestors after the June 2009 presidential elections in Iran. Another reason is the rejection of Obama administration’s conciliatory gestures towards Iran.

In a Gallop poll conducted recently, some 61 percent of the respondents viewed Iran as a serious threat to the American people.

The Israeli government and some of the political groups in the country constitute other forces that try to increase the rhetoric on war. They wish that armed hostilities between Iran and the US would begin soon that the threat of a nuclear Iran against Israel would pass.

But Iranian officials too welcome this psychological war. They fear a military confrontation, whether limited or extensive, and prefer that such an event never takes place. But the main decision makers, including the leader himself, believe that the threat of war is not serious and that it is only a psychological and propaganda policy. They do not view America to be in a position to attack Iran. Still, they strive to intensify the psychological war. In this way, they primarily desire to neutralize America’s psychological war and show that they will not retreat on the nuclear issue. They view the threats to be part of the policy of imposing new sanctions against Iran and therefore engage in reciprocating with military and terrorist threats. At the same time, they view this atmosphere of military threats suitable for extend the extraordinary and security conditions in the country. After the passage of a year and half since last year’s controversial elections and the silencing of the street protests, one would expect the police atmosphere to end and normal political activity to be returned to the country. Such a change would reduce tensions and give breathing space to civil society. And such an environment could result in a revival of the pro-change forces in Iran. At a time when the regime has not yet regained its lost self-confidence and as it fears of the imbalance between the government and opposition forces, it is hesitant in returning the country to the pre-election days. So the military threat is a valuable tool keep the atmosphere closed by exaggerating the military threat and justifying the social constrains. Also, the military and extremist elements of the regime have greater freedom in this atmosphere and so they add fuel to the fire. Another benefit of the current atmosphere is that it prevents the further split among the Principlists while also keeping a united front inside the regime and thus unify the inner groups of the regime and encourage them to ignore the shortcomings or expressing their criticism, all by pointing towards the military danger looming out there. At the same time, the regime strives to keep its nuclear policies ambiguous and by pursuing a two track policy and sending contradictory message it strives to keep the international community confused and by presenting such plans as joint fuel consortium with Russia pursue its policy of buying time and creating divisions in the 5+1 Group.

So war and military strike remains only at the threat level and far from actual operations. But the main cause of a new military confrontation in the region will most certainly be a miscalculation on the part of Iranian authorities. Events till today have not gone according to their wishes or calculations. Underestimating US military power and the continuation of the confrontational posture in Iran’s foreign policy can take events to a point where an armed confrontation to end the nuclear deadlock may come to a point of no return.