Iran issued dramatic threats to the US yesterday about the consequences of an American or Israeli military attack on its nuclear plants, part of the past week’s showy verbal exchanges with the US and the European Union. But the real drama lies in the next stage of complicated negotiations, hard to interpret even by the intricate standards of the six-year wrangle over Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Their unpredictability stems from new factors: disagreements within Iran on whether to negotiate, and on what terms; the dwindling possibility of military action by the US or Israel, now very unlikely; and the Bush Administration’s new interest in links with ordinary Iranians, to build on the pro-American feeling within the country.

Is the United States heading into a deadly confrontation with Iran? Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the unsuccessful maverick Republican presidential candidate, warned millions of radio listeners this is now inevitable. He cited House Congressional Resolution 362, lobbied hard by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), as a "Virtual Iran War Resolution." Since its introduction three weeks ago, and before the weeklong July Fourth break, the resolution garnered 150 cosponsors. In the Senate, sister Resolution 580, introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh, was also gathering momentum. If passed by both houses, the United States would be at war with Iran - alone, without allies, and oil would double immediately to $300 a barrel. The Bush administration has pledged it will keep the Strait of Hormuz open, and protect tankers transporting 25 percent of the world's daily ocean-borne oil traffic through the 32-mile-wide strait.