With the word from Washington suggesting that the strikes would not be restricted to Iran’s nuclear installations and cover the extended military infrastructure — air, naval bases, missile sites, command and control centres — the Middle East region is bracing itself for perhaps much graver instability than the preceding years.

On a point of immense concern, it appears that the ‘trigger’ for the assault no longer only concerns Iran’s nuclear programme. US military strategists are revealing that should a direct Iranian hand be found behind US troop casualties in Iraq, the response would be equally military.

These developments put last few weeks’ manoeuvres into perspective. From the isolate-and-alienate tactics to deployment of warships and aircraft carriers around Iran, Washington has been moving pieces around Teheran on the Middle East chessboard. And the idea is pretty akin to a chess gambit. The US is trying to put just enough pressure on President Ahmadinejad’s regime to get the latter to move some pieces back. But since Iran’s ruling elite shows little chances of doing that, and the country is still not in violation of the NPT, it seems the confrontation is finally at hand.

It is now for Washington to exhibit the political maturity required of a superpower. Seeing what use of force has brought to Iraq and Afghanistan, it understands better than most what the likely fallout of a strike on Iran is going to be. It is also aware of the militia-influence Iran enjoys in the wider Middle East, especially Iraq.

Therefore, in the interest of achieving the desired end — that is, halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions and bringing peace to the region — it is urged that the door of diplomacy not be closed at this particular point in time. The success of the North Korean talks in Beijing have only recently demonstrated how even the most upstart of regimes listen to reason when engaged with properly.