Europe had earlier opposed American unilateralism that reeked of contempt of the UN. The US was contemplating military action against Iran on August 12 despite the American experts' estimate that Iran would take 10 years to fabricate atomic weapon. Despite its own action, Europe is unlikely to welcome another US military action. Herr Gerhard Schroeder, the German Chancellor, has already fired a shot across Americans' bow: unilateral American action against Iran will be opposed.

Maybe Schroeder thinks that to oppose American unilateral pursuit of its geo-strategic objectives is the way to win an election in Germany. His 2003 opposition to American invasion of Iraq did help him win his second term of office. It may be a straw in the European wind. Schroeder was not alone in 2003. Apart from support in the EU, world opinion too was opposed to an American military thrust into Iraq. There is no reason why things should be any different in Iran's case. Indeed bigger worldwide protests may follow. Tony Blair's indication that UK will not participate in a US military action in Iran is a pointer.

India and Pakistan will be hugely embarrassed. Both are America's close allies. Both are friends of Iran. Both profess to be committed to a gas pipeline that will bring Iranian natural gas to Pakistan and India, despite America frowning darkly. Their public opinion will force both India and Pakistan to oppose that war in public at least, even though they may stymie the progress on gas pipeline project ostensibly for technical glitches.

Both China and Russia have held that taking Iran to the UN Security Council is not a good idea. What UNSC can do is either to punish Iran with binding sanctions or, as an extreme step, authorise military action against it. Many think that if any of these steps are contemplated by the UNSC, they might use their vetoes. The quest for getting Iran branded as an outlaw is meant to clear the road for American military action, though the expected worldwide protests can cause crises for American foreign policy.

Indications are that the US may be seriously contemplating military action against Iran. The likely scenario of that war, according to American reports, will not be a proper invasion, though a small force of 30,000 or so Marines and Special Forces will try to establish a bridgehead on the coast, probably not far from Iran's oil-bearing Khuzistan. For the rest, American fighters, bombers and missiles will try and take out all possible targets in Iran before that. The rest will be done by Special Forces.

This would suggest that the US is not fazed with what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. It means it does not think that Afghanistan and Iraq have compromised its capacity to go ahead with the programme outlined by the Twentyfirst Century Project. Doubtless this estimate rests on certain obvious assumptions: it is none of America's business to clean up the political mess that its military actions make. In the case of Afghanistan a regime change with a more pliable one gave it permanent base(s) and goes on listening to its advice. Never mind if Karzai's writ runs only as far as US Humvees reach.

The same can be said of Iraq, the context being further likely (?) American military actions for regime changes. In Iraq all possibilities are open about what may happen to the country, including a civil war and its break up into three states. But what nobody is talking about (except those who are sustaining the insurgency) are the oil and other contracts given to US corporations and the permanent bases in the country. As if these subjects are of no consequence to Iraqis! It is only those who are not mesmerised by America's panoply of power and who can read American media's outpourings critically insist on seeing all sides of the problem. There is however an immediate issue for them to consider.

There is a school that thinks America is in a quagmire; it has started something it cannot finish. Too many American lives are being lost and personal popularity of George W is going down. He is in no position to seriously think of getting into the much larger Iranian bog. He has only to find a way of getting out of Iraq, not getting into Iran. Others say more clarity of thought is needed: Bush is not an old-style colonialist. He is after establishing America's hegemony through regime changes, not always by invading, so as to control key raw materials with the ability to deny their supplies to unfriendly states and to keep America well-supplied. He accepts no responsibility in behalf of new pro-American regimes that are required to clean up the mess by themselves with minimum aid from Uncle Sam.

There is however an economic argument against intervening in Iran. Iran pumps out 3-4 million barrels of oil a day. Military action can cause a disruption in supplies for a variable period in terms of months, if not years. In all cases of supply interruptions, price of oil in international markets can go through the roof. It is true that American economy is, in the opinion of some experts, capable of riding out prices as high as $ 100 a barrel. But far too many among the smaller fry will go to the wall.

Not only will China, India, Pakistan and many European, Asian and African economies will suffer but many weak ones will face total bankruptcy and heavy indebtedness. It can bring on global recession -- maybe depression. Will the US take that risk? Some say yes; the US will not care; it is likely to be far too focused on its immediate objective. Others differ.

One circumstance must be remembered. A polarisation is beginning to take shape between China and Russia on one side and the US on the other. Crisis over Iran can only deepen this cleavage. A similar, rather tentative, polarisation may also emerge: America versus old EU members, led by Germany and France. An expectation is that if the US pipes down and lets diplomacy in the UN take charge, the momentum of US drive for domination in Asia will be lost. That will mean the whole programme sketched out by Neo-Cons in America will run the risk of breaking down. The world will be a lot worse than it was in 2001 with no special gain to America other than Iraqi oil, the security of which might remain under question by insurgency and permanent bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq that may be hard to use for the purpose they were acquired for.

Much will depend on the American people. Will the protests sparked by Ms. Sheehan's demo outside the Bush ranch in Texas mushroom and spread throughout the length and breadth of America? Or the conservative instincts of America's silent majority will reassert and reverse the Bush's plummeting ratings? Both are possibilities. We may be sure that the Bush supporters can, in the latter case, seek to revive the momentum of his drive in Asia and action against Iran will fit the bill, no matter who opposes. Hopes for peace hang on the peace movement in America gaining unusual strength.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.