Condoleezza Rice?s offer of US involvement in multilateral talks with Iran may sharpen debate among Iran?s political elite over the prospect of dialogue with Washington. But her insistence that ?all options?, including threatened military strikes, were on the table will increase the deep scepticism in Tehran over US motives and rally those in outright opposition to any talks.
Even those arguing that any successful negotiations over Iran?s atomic programme must involve the US are likely to reject Ms Rice?s demand that Iran first end all uranium enrichment. Iran?s bottom line for its nuclear programme appears, at the very least, to be continuing the research project resumed in January at the Natanz plant, which enriches uranium in 164 centrifuges.
While officials have floated various proposals accepting limits beyond Iran?s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there has been no forum with the west to explore them since negotiations with the European Union broke down last year.
Yet Tehran now seems to believe Europe cannot deliver without US agreement.
?They seem to think, why talk to us, when they can talk to the boss,? a European diplomat in Tehran recently told the Financial Times.
Amir Mohebian, political editor of the conservative Resalat newspaper, said on Wednesday that if there were to be negotiations, it would be better to talk directly to the US than resume negotiations with the EU or start multilateral talks with the permanent five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
?It is clear to us the Europeans . . . act as America?s lawyer without even having full authority from them,? he told the Mehr news agency. ?We should . . . focus our energy on negotiations with the main party.?
But any Iranian fall-back position and its attitude to talks with the US are both subject to ebb and flow within the political elite.
Some pragmatic conservatives ? including former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and former top security official Hassan Rowhani ? have urged a more conciliatory approach. Hamid-Reza Asefi, foreign ministry spokesman, said this week there was ?no consensus on the number of centrifuges to be used for research? and this was ?a subject for negotiation?.
Mohammad-Javad Zarif, Iran?s United Nations ambassador, said last week Iran was ready to cap enrichment levels well below those required for an atomic bomb and would welcome a nuclear power consortium ?owned and operated by various countries, not excluding the United States?.
But the prominence of fundamentalist President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad as Iran?s public face on the nuclear issue may reflect the weakening of the pragmatists.
Mr Ahmadi-Nejad has used the nuclear issue as a popular rallying cry in defiance of the US, tapping historical fears of outside ?interference?. Last month he announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium. And earlier this month he rejected any prospective international offer of incentives to halt uranium enrichment as swapping ?candies or walnuts? for gold.
Decisions are ultimately determined by a collective leadership under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose recent pronouncements have been close to those of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad. On Sunday, Ayatollah Khamenei warned that ?any retreat? on the nuclear issue would be ?a 100 per cent loss?.
?Young Iranian engineers, with their success, have guaranteed the long-term energy future of the country,? he told parliamentary deputies. Ayatollah Khamenei also praised the letter sent earlier this month by Mr Ahmadi-Nejad to President George W. Bush, to which Mr Bush has not formally replied.
