Iran and the US - at breaking point

So what now? The deadline for Iran to respond to American proposals on transfer of enriched nuclear fuel has elapsed. Another stalemate has developed in Iranian domestic politics, as the reformist movement remains intact and the government retains its iron grip. Potential international sanctions are no closer with China and Russia continuing to see the Iranian issue in different terms to the West. Meanwhile Israel only gets twitchier.

Surely this situation cannot continue. The short answer is no. Both sides have indicated that they will not back down. The long game of brinkmanship that Iran has been playing will eventually end. The dangerous brinkmanship that Saddam engaged in prior to the Iraq invasion was supported by his belief that America would never invade. Even days prior to the actual invasion he believed that the Americans would not go through with it. Now Barack Obama is no George W Bush and is not surrounded by a hawkish cabinet, so military action is not inevitable. But the pressure on him in a Congressional election year, with a relative decline in his popularity and with a frenzied Republican right, would be too great for him to, if not actually authorise military action, at least give tacit support to Israeli action. It is hard to stay optimistic given the characters involved and the political context of Iran-US-Israeli relations, but in this article I'll try.

The way things stand Iran, Israel and the United States are on a collision course. It is safe to say that the policy of any one of them will not dramatically change with their respective leaders. But the one constant that might change is Iran's domestic political situation. If there is going to be a solution to the nuclear crisis then it will come from here. On the one hand, the nuclear card has often (and could henceforth be) been used to shore up domestic support amongst a patriotic population. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent nuclear rhetoric has been ratcheted up to try and distract from deep internal opposition to his presidency. But once the consequences of such a nuclear policy become apparent, with sanctions and further economic isolation, internal opposition will only grow. Reformist leader Mir Hussein Mousavi pledged his support for Iran's nuclear programme in the June elections, but his pragmatism is clear. Besides, any candidate who pledged to scrap Iran's nuclear programme would not have been permitted on the ballot paper, with Iran's strictly controlled electoral system.

Looking from hindsight it was probably a mistake to President Obama to be so impartial during the election protest last year. A declaration of American commitment to human rights and democratic integrity is not the same as meddling in another countries affairs. Iran's leaders blamed the West anyway for the post election unrest, despite Western government's going out of their way to keep schtum. Given the fragility of the situation, knowing what kind of covert activity America is undertaking in Iran, would be difficult. The Iranians have made various claims of foreign espionage plots involving American hikers, journalists or just simply foreign infiltrators. None have come across as anything but the result of the regime's paranoia. Either the Americans are acting very carefully or dare not create an incident that could trigger a serious escalation. As with today's assassination of a nuclear physicist – the initial blame was put on America and Israel but was denied immediately.

A game of psychological warfare is being played out. You can guarantee that America has a legion of analysts and Iranologists de-cyphering messages emitting from Tehran, whilst trying to determine who holds the power in Iran's opaque political system. Iranian psychology might often seem simple and naïve but is equally thoughtful. Every incident in Iran's turbulent domestic scene can be passed off as a foreign plot onto an often gullible public. The Iranian leadership might be ignorant of global politics but they know how to play international powers off one another, stall negotiations and maintain ambiguity.

Having an influence on how Iran's domestic battle evolves, is way beyond America's reach. It is doubtful whether sanctions could hurt the factions America wants to weaken. Helping exiles might be an answer. On the downside, after the Iraq experience, exiles can often provide false information and be unrepresentative of the actual population. The ruling elite has a tight control, so what counts is what occurs in protests in Iranian cities. But even though the internet and external communications are censored, knowing that foreign exiles and supporters are strong and organized outside Iran, would embolden the domestic protesters.