Dubai: The political mood in the region seems to be heading towards escalation between Iran and the West, according to analysts.
"Definitely, the general atmosphere [in the region] is not comfortable at all," Kuwaiti analyst and columnist Sami Al Nisf told Gulf News.
Yesterday Iran's General Mohammad Hassan Koussechi, a general in the elite Revolutionary Guards warned "we have reached capacities that allow us to hit the enemy at a range of 2,000 kilometres."
The Iranian Foreign Ministry said France's credibility had been damaged by its Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner's warning over the increasing risk of an armed confrontation.
"This shows the influence of unreal suggestions and erroneous information from others which will not guarantee the interests of France," spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said in a statement.
"I believe this is part of a renewed escalation of the verbal confrontation between the West and Iraq," Abdul Khaleq Abdallah, political science professor at the UAE University told Gulf News.
To Abdallah, the West took the "decision to confront Iran...But the decision of a military confrontation has not been taken yet."
Other experts share a similar vision.
"I don't see the war coming," said Mustafa Al Ani, an expert at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Centre.
"In diplomacy, you don't give into military pressures," he added.
Leading think tanks in Britain believe a war of nerves has broken out but offer a far from united front on its likely outcome.
"There are plenty of reasons the US would want Iran to think they are preparing for war," Tim Knox, editor of the London-based Centre for Policy Studies, said.
Sustained dialogue
"Particularly interesting is that the French are the front runners, distancing themselves from the Chirac era, playing to Moscow as well. They may see themselves as a possible bridge between the US and Russia, with the UK still seen as too pro-Washington."
There is growing polarisation and hardliners on both sides would welcome war, according to Gabrielle Rifkind of the Oxford Research Group.
"The key question is what needs to happen to reduce the tensions and such comments like this serve to harden attitudes and polarise the argument," Rifkind, the group's Human Security Consultant and Middle East Expert said.
'"What is needed is an unconditional sustained dialogue between Iran and the West. At present communications are taking place on parallel trajectories and this is very dangerous. There are hardliners on both sides of this conflict who would welcome a confrontation and are looking for opportunities to create the conditions for this."
Chris Parker, programme leader at the UK-based Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, believed the comments by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner were hugely significant.
"On one hand it is increasing pressure on Iran but it also signifies another European country coming into the Iran debate."
Neither does an attack have to be a full-scale invasion, he said.
"It can be strategic more than operational, involving special forces and low-intensity. Washington is even hoping for an internal revolution. They wanted something like that to happen In Iraq and it didn't but they haven't given up hope of an internal upheaval in Iran.
Another Iraq
"Ever since the revolution, Iran has been the bad guy in Washington which is why the Democrats are staying so quiet, it is as if they are deliberately not saying too much as they may be the ones who have to act."
Experts and analysts believe that all signs so far do not give any clue of the purpose of any strike, in case it was decided.
Would it be a confrontation that would create another Iraq in Iran in reference to the chaos in Iraq, in which the regime was overthrown, "or would it be a quick "surgical" attack that might boost the positions of the hardliners in Iran and the hawks in the US," asked Al Nisf.
While the form of any military action is a point of speculation, there is one confirmed fact, which Abdallah expressed: "Wars don't end usually the way you planned."
The Gulf region has already been affected by the crisis with or without military action, experts said, adding that development is usually based on openness of the region.
But why the tension in the first place?
While many experts believe that Iran's nuclear programme is the focal point of tension, other analysts disagree.
One side strongly believe that the main cause is Tehran's controversial nuclear programme, which is an "illegal military programme," especially as Iran has voluntary signed the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Tehran says its programme is a civilian one, but Western countries question such a declaration.
Iran's nuclear programme goes back to 1959 when the US, under the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, offered Iran experimental laboratories.
"Nobody objected to Iran's programme until 2003, when it was discovered that Tehran had hidden many facts that raised questions, including three sites that were built," said Al Ani.
Other experts went further and said the whole issue is because of Iran's increasing ambitions in the region and that such a role by a country from the region has historically proved to be "totally unacceptable" to the West.
"Iran is challenging the US.... That is why the West is telling Iran 'back down or deal with it,'" said Abdallah.
Other analysts blame the "fiery and provocative" statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmad-inejad towards the West. Others blame the internal problems in Iran, such as unemployment, behind Tehran's attempt to escalate the situation abroad to divert attention.
"Those who think that Iran's president is the sole decision-maker in Iran is absolutely mistaken," said Al Husseini.
"What he is saying is general talk that reflects the decision-making institutions."
Al Husseini believes the leading role explanation is closer to reality that other factors.
"But this is not because the Iranians sought it, it is because the Americans have dismantled the region," he said.
Concerned
"Because Iran is a strong country, and the vacuum is meaningless, the Iranian role becomes obvious," he said.
At the same time, Arab neighbours have the right to feel concerned, Al Husseini said.
"Iran needs to sit with Arabs to agree on the limits and form of its role, among other issues related to Iran. There is a big difference between playing your role and defending your national security and replacing Israel with Iran as your enemy," he said.
Meanwhile, the debate inside the US administration on how to deal with Iran continues.
While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been arguing for a continuation of a diplomatic approach, officials in Vice-President Dick Cheney's office advocate a much tougher view that seeks to isolate and contain Iran, and to include greater consideration of a military strike.
The State Department has asked top officials from the five other world powers seeking to rein in Tehran's nuclear ambitions to come to Washington on Friday for a meeting in which Washington will press for stronger sanctions. A week later, Rice will meet with her counterparts from Europe, Russia and China to discuss the sanctions issue, which is aimed at making Tehran suspends its uranium enrichment programme.