With American forces bogged down in Iraq and fighting a losing war in Afghanistan, rumour has it that the US will either itself unleash attack on Iran or prod Israel to do so. Iran's pursuit of nuclear programme is brainteaser for the US and the western powers that want to extend their imperial hegemony over the world and make every other nation toe their line. The change of regime in Iran is on the US agenda since the period preceding Iraqi invasion. The neo-cons have the desire to create their own reality rooted in Machiavellian principles. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to decipher that the US has already overstretched its empire beyond its capabilities and cannot afford any strategic adventurism. The fact noteworthy is that to work out plans without taking realistic situation into consideration proves counterproductive. An objective and dispassionate analysis makes it crystal clear that the ground realities do not warrant attack on Iran and the rhetoric of war is merely an instrument of brinkmanship. The attack on Iran is not strategically feasible. Some observations, in this regard, are in order. First, if Iran is attacked, the oil prices may shoot up to $200 a barrel. This surge would hit hard the global economy. With every passing day, it is growing difficult for warmongers in the Bush administration to justify the launch of the attack. The American people too are not willing to sanction a new war just for pandering to neo-cons' bellicose sentiments. Moreover the shift in US policy towards Iran emboldens the stance that America will not engage itself in another adventure despite continuously ratcheting up of pressure on Iran. Last month on July 19, a meeting was held in Geneva in which the six major powers gave Iran too weeks to respond unequivocally on the nuclear issue. Already the western powers had extended 'freeze for freeze' offer but no positive response was given by the Iranian officials. According to this package, if Iran freezes its uranium enrichment programme, the western powers would , in turn, 'freeze' or halt the imposition of further sanctions. What was unprecedented in Geneva's meeting was that for the first time, a senior US official, William Burns, attended the talks and had direct contact with Tehran envoy over the nuclear standoff. This willingness to negotiate with Iran directly was nothing short of a stunning reversal for this dispensation. Second, no matter how badly hit, Iran would certainly respond to the military attack itself and through its proxies in the region in a myriad of possible ways. Gholam Hussein Nozari, Iran's oil minister, swore that his country would react in a fierce way and 'nobody can imagine what would be the reaction of Iran'. Iran can take on the mining of the Strait of Hormuz through which a significant portion of the world's oil passes, as well as other disruptions of shipping in the region. American troops stationed in Iraq would become hostages to Iran's actions. In such a situation the reaction in Shia regions of Iraq cannot be ruled out and so the US supply lines for its troops running through those regions would be vulnerable. Besides this, the increasing chaos will grip the whole region as Hezbollah and Hamas may also unleash their forces against Israel. Third, the recent analysis by Washington-based Institute for science and international security suggests that Iran's nuclear facilities are too widely dispersed and protected to be effectively destroyed by warplanes. Thus a military strike would only delay the country's progress towards nuclear capability on the one hand and the strike is also likely to backfire by stiffening Iran's resolve to manufacture the bomb on the other. As measured against attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, a strike against Iran would be harder by several orders of magnitude. Iran has built bunkers and subterranean chambers inside mountains where the actual centrifuges could be replaced at a quick pace. The attack would also result in shoring up support for Iran's ruling clerics and spawning hatred against the West. The chances of Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sited too are dim as Iran's foreign minister has averred many a time that the Iranians would treat an Israeli attack as if it were an American one. The reason being that in case of aerial sortie, Israeli jets would have to cross Iraqi airspace controlled by the US. The myth of Israel's invincibility has already been shattered in a 34-day war with Hezbollah last year and it has exposed the weakness of the Israeli government. After two weeks deadline given to Iran last month, it has given a non-committal one page letter to the six powers containing no reply as such to their offer. On August 11, the 27-member European Union announced new sanctions against Iran including restrictions on public loans and tougher cargo inspections. The EU and US have also imposed restrictions on the activities of Iran's largest bank. Iran has already faced three rounds of economic sanctions by the UN but the effect of sanctions is watered down because of the reluctance of China and Russia. Given this scenario, it is far-fetched to assume the likelihood of Iran's willingness to halt its nuclear programme at any cost. Concomitantly, the military action is not practicable as it will not achieve the desired results. Thus, the US will have to eat a humble pie by modulating its stance over the issue substantially. America will have to come to grips with the limits of its over-stretched imperialistic power and learn to live in reality. The writer is a law student, Punjab University Email:naumanasghar18@yahoo.com