Who would have become the first major casualty should a war on Iran indeed be declared by the United States and its allies?

The answer might very well be Jack Straw, until last weekend the British foreign secretary. The rumour mill of Fleet Street in London has it that Prime Minister Tony Blair demoted one of his most trusted cabinet colleagues to the position of the Leader of the House of Commons because the latter had been deemed as 'a wimp' by the White House.

It is reported that President George W Bush was particularly irked by Straw's remarks that a military action against Iran was not only inconceivable but also 'nuts'.

Since last year, Washington has been persistently accusing Tehran of harbouring nuclear ambitions, and relentlessly seeking to put together at least a small but powerful group of nations in an attempt to isolate and demonise the Islamic Republic.

The scenario is remarkably similar to before March 2003. The talk of a menacing Iran has been so loudly and frequently repeated that perhaps much of the world is now convinced that the Iranians have successfully produced nuclear weapons, or are on course to getting them.

But the contrary it true. The latest National Intelligence Estimate, released by Washington itself, holds that Tehran is at least 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon

In March this year, Thabo Mbeki, the South African president, reminded his parliamentarians that it is perfectly within the jurisdiction of a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory to find access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, which in his view is 'critical' and has to be 'respected'. Unfortunately for the US, Iran is one such country. And the failure on the part of the US, Britain and France to mention this important fact is inscrutable.

Moreover, Ruprecht Polenz, the Christian Democrat head of Germany's parliamentary foreign affairs committee, expressed his satisfaction late last year that Iran was fully in compliance with the NPT. He also referred to the fact Iran had acted consistently by allowing the IAEA to inspect and control its nuclear installations another vital aspect of the NPT - although he has recently urged the Iranian leadership to rethink its stance on its national nuclear programme with uranium-enrichment activities as a sign of goodwill so that peace may prevail.

Mere suspicion

Even Jimmy Carter has had no kind words for the country that he once led when it comes to the NPT issue. In March 2005, he wrote in the Washington Post that the US was the major culprit in the erosion of the NPT when it asserted plans to test and develop, inter alia, anti-ballistic missiles, abandoned past pledges and threatened first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

Citing Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that 'the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security', the Bush administration has been pursuing with vigour the goal of economic sanctions on Iran to punish the latter for being a 'threat to international peace'.

But mere suspicion is insufficient for the UN to impose economic sanctions on Tehran. Secretary -General Kofi Annan has also made clear his objection to having the UN take over the supervisory role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Meanwhile, Washington's biased and inherently flawed Weltanschauung is not shared by some other major powers. China and Russia, two permanent members of the UNSC, certainly do not subscribe to this US-centric perception, while Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation, has just hosted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in hope of forging closer economic and trade ties between the two countries.

These three states have a combined population of some 1.6 billion, representing a substantial part of the world.

Indeed, Russia has been trying to lance the boil, but its effort has been frustrated by the US time and again. Little wonder that Vladimir Putin was finding it hard to conceal his pent-up feelings that led to his latest umbrage. With such antagonistic message, one can be assured that the return of the cold peace between the two giants is nigh.

There is almost absolutely certainty that ultimate costs will far outweigh whatever gains one may make from a war on Iran. Being a respected Muslim nation, such a reckless adventure will bring the US and the West into greater confrontation with the Islamic world, while many fanatics and terrorists, already impatient with the moderates, await eagerly to spill innocent blood.

Furthermore, with the oil prices skyrocketing, any conflict over Iran will only exacerbate the current energy crisis.

Toast and dance

But the current conundrum is yet to reach its nadir and a way out is still possible. In the wake of his and his party's nosedive in the polls, it is not at all clear if Blair will continue to be a ready help to his closest American friend as he was on the eve of the Iraq invasion more than three years ago.

Talks of tougher action may come to naught now that Blair's future as prime minister hangs in the balance, and his potential successor Gordon Brown is not known for any rapport with Bush. Moreover, his immediate priorities as prime minister would be to sort out the myriad problems at home in preparation for a general election - not sabre-rattling over Iran.

Given that Jacques Chirac, with less than one year to go as president, is increasingly seen as a lame duck, only Chancellor Angela Merkel comes across as a promising and effective leader among her other EU counterparts. But again, she has no desire for confrontation, however much she disagrees with Ahmadinejad.

In addition, Japan, nothing but a nuclear humbug, may urge for peaceful solution due to its insatiable energy needs, not to mention China and Russia, the two major 'stumbling blocks' at the UNSC.

Having said that, I do admit Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic rhetoric is a cause for concern, as the Jewish population at large should not be victimised in this farcical blame game. But going all the way to declare a war on Iran would be a punishment too far. To reprimand the provocative president, Germany should indeed consider a ban on him from attending this year's World Cup, as proposed by some German lawmakers.

At this critical juncture, it is important to keep the Iran controversy in proper perspective and avoid falling into the trap by allowing the US and its allies to drive their agenda outside of the present international legal framework.

Washington may send Karen Hughes to toast to and dance with the US apologists and 'moderate' Muslim leaders in Southeast Asia to everyone's content, but, as Ahmadinejad has written in his letter to Bush, the US' policies in the Middle East have enraged and alienated the people in the region. After all, what purpose does it serve for one to offer to mend a punctured tyre while continuing to throw nails on the road?