LONDON, April 21 (AFP) - As East and West stood divided over how to respond to Tehran's nuclear programme, analysts warned that a US-led military strike on Iran had become a plausible outcome to the crisis, AFP reported.
"There are two irreconcilable visions, the Iranians will do anything to have their bomb and the Americans will do anything for them not to have it," said Dominique Moisi of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).
"The chances of us moving in the medium term towards a military solution are well and truly 50-50," he said.
"There is definitely an American military option," agreed Bruno Tertrais, of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS).
Western powers, especially Washington, suspect Iran of using a civilian nuclear programme to hide a secret bomb project.
Tehran denies Washington's accusations and has struck a defiant pose, announcing plans to accelerate its uranium enrichment work, a process which can be used to provide nuclear fule or build an atomic bomb, despite United Nations demands for it to stop.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday voiced barely veiled threats of a military assault on Iran, in the name of "self-defence", if the crisis was not resolved through the United Nations.
French President Jacques Chirac and Middle Eastern powers Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan have all come out strongly against the use of force, warning of dangerous repercussions for the region.
"I think it's more than just putting pressure on Iran. I think it's a real possibility," argued Mark Fitzpatrick, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
"The (US) administration is looking at it seriously, not for using it today but if all else fails, as a last option."
Frederic Tellier, of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations (IRIS), agreed that "the evolution of the crisis leads us to envisage a military solution in the medium term".
He said he expected the military option to "return to the forefront very quickly, from the start of 2007".
Fitzpatrick was more cautious, saying there was still "room for diplomacy" and predicting that any military strike would be at least three years away, the minimum time it would take Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
Faced with Iran's determination, however, others have warned diplomacy may not be powerful enough to force it to renounce its nuclear goals.
"The story whereby everybody plays their part, some using a carrot and the others a stick, doesn't work anymore," argued Georges Le Guelte, a former member of the board of governors of the UN's nucelar watchdog, the IAEA.
"It is not only the Americans who are going to be asking themselves questions about possible military strikes."
Tellier also said it was hard to see how diplomacy could succeed.
"The heavy economic sanctions that could make Tehran bend or change its strategy are very difficult to take, mainly because of opposition from Russia," he said.
The UN has called on Iran to halt all enrichment activity and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is to report back to the Security Council on April 28 on Iran's compliance.
But several days of diplomatic manoeuvring in Moscow have failed to produce a consensus among the five permanent Security Council members, Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States, on the use of sanctions against Iran.
While the United States and the "EU-3", composed of France, Britain and Germany, back the use of sanctions, Russia and China, both close economic partners of Tehran's, are against.
China said on Thursday it would back US efforts to peacefully resolve the crisis. But Russia simultaneously rejected a US demand for it to stop building a nuclear power plant in Iran.
