The odds are against an attack on Iran

The November presidential election looms at a moment when the United States may seriously review its approach to many issues in the Middle East, without any clear indication today as to which policy direction will prevail. Between now and then, however, the Bush administration seems increasingly pressed to decide what to do about Iran's growing nuclear capabilities, especially its uranium enrichment facilities.

The striking aspect of US foreign policy in the Middle East these days, compared to a decade or two ago, is the sheer scale and complexity of American involvement throughout the region - which is almost exactly mirrored by Iran's web of military, ideological and economic ties with many partners around the region.

This makes it much more difficult for the US (or Israel) to strike militarily against Iran's nuclear facilities in the near future. Yet it is hard to see tough guys like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney simply slipping out of office and retiring to their respective ranches in January while Iran's 3,000 odd cascaded centrifuges are furiously spinning away and producing the enriched uranium vital for a nuclear industry - whether that industry produces electricity, bombs or anything else of value.

The US dilemma in Iran is compounded by two other factors. First, it is likely that in 2009 the US will start gradually withdrawing its troops from Iraq, and, second, the six principal diplomatic mediations now taking place in the Middle East (involving Lebanon, Syria, Hamas, Hizbullah, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, Israel and Saudi Arabia, in various combinations) are all occurring without major or direct American involvement.