As much of the world is engulfed in the atmosphere of fear over Iran's possible move towards producing its own nuclear technology, it is in fact not too hard to understand the resentment of the Iranians at what they see as sheer double standards of the western world.

Following the much hyped-up visit by President George W Bush to India, the world now has one more nuclear power, despite the fact that New Delhi is yet to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Bush, while in Pakistan, made no mention of the clandestine nuclear activities of the country, choosing to emphasise the important role of Islamabad in fighting against global terror.

By contrast, Iran, which is an NPT signatory, has turned itself into an international bogeyman when it seeks to exercise its right to peaceful nuclear development.

Let's face it, nuclear future is vital for Iran as the country hopes to master the nuclear fuel cycle to build power plants for electricity, thereby conserving the oil and gas deposits that its exports to earn hard currency.

To preempt such eventuality, the US, together with Germany, France and Britain, is keeping up the international pressure on Iran to abort the plan, citing "imminent" threats. They are now ready to punish Tehran through the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

What about Israel?

So far, the most hawkish remarks have come not from Bush himself, but President Chirac, who has made it clear that France will not hesitate in striking hard against any Middle Eastern country that toys with nuclear adventure. He must be so conveniently oblivious that Israel, too, is a Middle Eastern country.

The fact is, with an estimated 200 nuclear weapons, Israel's capabilities in deterring Iran and launching massive retaliation are beyond dispute. Then again, to implicate Israel negatively in this regard would most probably result in the French leader being labeled as anti-Semitic, no less so by the neocons and the Zionist Christians.

Chirac's volte-face is not too surprising in light of the recent developments. The violent reaction of much of the Muslim world against the Danish cartoons has laid bare the vulnerabilities of Europe. The European siege mentality was at its sharpest when the US was gleefully steering clear of the controversy, forcing the European leaders to reassess their strategic outlooks and alignments in the face of the impending "menace".

But how "imminent" are the threats posed by Iran's obstinate pursuit of nuclear energy?

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, an authoritative figure in nuclear issues, cannot be more forthright, as he told Newsweek recently that "we don't see a clear and present danger".

Con Coughlin, defense and security editor of the London Telegraph , opines that it will be at least three years from now before the 164 centrifuges in the Natanz pilot plant could enable Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single bomb.

Given that Bush will retire from the highest public office in the US, little wonder the president has toned down his saber-rattling stance since his State of the Union address in January. Whoever succeeds him may have to pick up the pieces while he enjoys his pension three years down the line.

It would however be wrong to jump to the conclusion that Tehran has put itself on the collision course with the rest of the world.

Voices of reason

Granted, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been foolish in his behavior. From his call for the elimination of Israel from the Middle East to his repeated intimidating rhetoric over the nuclear issue, he has practically alienated the potential allies that could have helped him diffuse the tension.

Still, there have been voices of reason and restraint within Iran in recent weeks.

According to the Iranian Students News Agency , Hojatoleslam Hassan Rohani, a former top nuclear negotiator and currently a representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, conceded in February that Iran would not achieve its goals by shouting alone.

As far as he sees it, a multidimensional, proactive and dynamic strategy is key to unlocking Iran's possible international isolation.

In addition, there are signs that elderly statesmen such as Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, the former president popular with the western world, have been exerting their influence from behind the scenes by attempting to contain the damage done by Ahmadinejad.

Externally, Iran is still counting on China and Russia to veto any sanction proposed by the US and the three European powers, although the failure of the Chinese and the Russians in blocking the referral in the first place has been deeply disappointing to the Iranians.

In this respect, China's dilemma lies in the fact that it needs Iran's gas, oil and other minerals for industrial development that is happening by leaps and bounds. As Beijing is actively diversifying its energy sources, it nevertheless falls short of forging a full-fledged strategic alliance with Tehran as this could cause severe disruption in the increasingly important Chinese-US trade. For all its nationalistic posture, the Chinese leadership can ill afford to endanger China's export to the US, and vetoing in favor of Iran would have serious implications for Sino-US relations.

It does not mean that Beijing has given up on searching for a way out to the Iranian nuclear deadlock. Being a major arms supplier of Iran, evidenced by its sale of surface-to-surface cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles in huge quantities, losing the trust of the Iranians could be bad for China, which would in turn prompt other medium, third world powers to think twice before embracing the Asian giant.

The Chinese government, along with its Russian counterpart, has urged all parties to show patience and flexibility in creating favorable conditions that could eventually resolve the issue. Playing the second fiddle, Beijing has given its endorsement for Moscow to take up a more upfront, high-profile mediator's role in the hope of ending the crisis.

Be so as it may, a peaceful solution to the nuclear dispute is dependent on Iran alone. Pragmatism, not ideological romance, is now the paramount guiding principle in the foreign policy of both China and Russia. The sooner Iran learns to make use of the diplomatic values to its own advantage as well as to harness the gaffe-prone, fiery Ahmadinejad, the better.