One was the latest State Department report that lists Iran as “the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world,” owing to its financing and planning of terrorist-related activities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. 
Ironically the report’s findings contradict the Obama administration’s recent efforts at promoting greater Iranian cooperation towards stabilising Afghanistan.

The second is the obvious US reluctance to use military force to deter Iran from its alleged nuclear weapon programme. The Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, only recently while testifying before the Senate Appropriation Committee, categorically rejected military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. He voiced strong opposition to the military option citing two main reasons why it may backfire and pose detrimental repercussions for the US. First, it would only serve to delay the programme, forcing the Iranian establishment to clandestinely work underground on developing a nuclear weapon programme, without allowing monitoring by the IAEA inspectors; second, it would further harden the resolve of the Iranian regime, a tested crucial deterrent that has been the pivotal factor governing the US-Iranian relations. Previously in 2007, Secretary Gates had cited another crucial reason, that a military strike is bound to generate immense ill will and hatred, inciting further recruitment of jihadists that would pose greater problems for America in the long term.

What is significant about Gates’ reasoning is the depth of understanding it reflects, of the situation on the ground and the ensuing fallback of unilateral strikes. In such a scenario, the US may also be worried about a possible Israeli attack on Iran, where it might be forcibly involved. Both Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have urged stronger international sanctions to pressure Iran. It was also crucial for Tehran to understand the folly of pursuing a nuclear weapon programme that would only create further instability in the region, as it would inadvertently trigger a nuclear weapon race among its neighbouring countries. Experts fear that Iran may be able to produce enough 
enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by the end of next year.

The neighbouring Gulf  States are rightfully concerned about such a possibility occurring. Their apprehensions are not misplaced concerning Iran’s interventionist and belligerent role in the region. Though the release of the terrorism report may affect future talks between the US and Iran, the good news is that the US has at present ruled out the viability of military strikes on Iran. It is hoped that Tehran will use the opportunity being offered to prevent regional instability while meeting their stated goals.