By Anoush Maleki

President George W. Bush, backed by a well-known neo-con crew as well as the gang in Tel Aviv, did all he could to formulate his war-loving foreign policy to force his successor manage a third military conflict in the Middle East.

Iran has been on the White House agenda for many years; recently, the potent excuse that has driven the drive has been the country's nuclear program, which is being conducted under the supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog.

Under the allegation that the anti-capitalist government in Tehran is after nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, the Bush administration lobbied for international support to impose economic sanctions against the country. The United Nations Security Council adopted three rounds of sanction resolutions and banned Iran from enriching uranium, even for peaceful purposes.

Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is allowed to enrich uranium to provide fuel for its under-construction nuclear power plants. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — the one and only body with the authority to intervene in nuclear programs around the globe — testifies to this.

However, President Bush seemed certain that, by including Tehran in his infamous 'axis of evil', the world would follow suit and consider the Iranians hell-bent on acquiring a bomb and starting a nuclear war.

The assertion, nevertheless, became the crying need for beating the drums of war against Iran. His major, inadvertent economy blunder, however, undercut his years-long attempts.

Now, even the neo-cons could accept that a military strike on Iran, to target its nuclear infrastructure, at best would only delay the program. The swift, massive retaliation that Iran's army and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) have promised aside, the oil price could skyrocket to “more than $200 a barrel in a matter of hours,” demolishing recuperative efforts to mend the economy, as Richard N. Haass, President of Council on Foreign Relations, argues in an opinion piece titled A Different Regime Change in Iran.

The truth is that the price for such course of action is too high.
President Obama, meanwhile, has toned down the rhetoric since taking office and adopted a softer language, offering a glimmer of hope for direct diplomacy with Tehran — the two states have not had any diplomatic relations since the US Embassy take over in Tehran in 1980.

Ironically, the nuclear issue has brought the two governments closer to each other. Iran is doing its part. It cooperates with the IAEA and is considering a deal to buy highly-enriched uranium for a research reactor from a likely consortium of France, Russia and the United States.

On Sunday, it allowed UN nuclear watchdog inspectors to visit an enrichment facility in southwest of Tehran, which the agency was informed of its existence in September, some 18 months before it goes live.

However, as long as allegations of weapons ambitions linger in the air, Tehran will not have much confidence in Washington to rebuild the relationship.

It is time the US administration took the initiative to build trust.

Soon enough, the White House will have to come to terms with the fact that Tehran will not abandon its nuclear program, as the government and Iranians in general wholeheartedly believe that the nuclear right is an inalienable one.

The nature of Iran's foreign policy, despite its anti-capitalistic values, is peaceful. The country has neither attacked any other nation nor threatened to do so in decades. Its leadership and the people deem the use of weapons of mass destruction as unholy and against the rule of Islam.

Therefore, the notion that Iran may one day decide to acquire weapons of mass destruction, use them to wipe out another nation, or hand them over to terrorists is pure nonsense.

All Iran seeks is a relationship with the international community based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," President Obama said in Cairo on June 4, 2009, addressing the Muslim world.

Despite having said these promises cannot be achieved "overnight", one can only hope that the American president was sincere.