The US National Intelligence Report on Iran's nuclear energy and weapons intentions cuts right across the war party in President Bush's administration and bolsters those who say an alternative diplomatic approach is a better way to deal with that state's growing influence in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The report says Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in autumn 2003 under international pressure, but that current intentions about resuming it are less clear because uranium enrichment for nuclear energy continues. Some combination of intense scrutiny and sanctions together with real opportunities for Iran to achieve its security goals can, it suggests, prompt its leaders to extend the current halt in its programme.
This is a startling reversal for the current rhetoric from Mr Bush, Vice-President Cheney and their neoconservative allies in the administration. For months they have been sounding a growing drumbeat of warnings that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons programme which could require a military strike to prevent. The threat has been linked to accusations that its leaders are actively encouraging terrorist movements in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza designed to undermine the US presence and Israel's very survival. This rhetoric has played directly into the US election campaigning by raising the possibility that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities might occur next April or May.
It must be recognised that parallel to this martial talk there has been an intensive US effort to secure tighter international sanctions against Iran because of its failure to cease uranium enrichment and clarify its military intentions. This has been driven by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice with Mr Bush's support. Together with Britain, Germany and France, the US has been trying to convince Russia and China that stronger sanctions will dissuade Iran. But such a policy has lacked credibility because of conflicting estimates from the International Atomic Energy Agency and other intelligence services about its real intentions. Inflammatory rhetoric from Iranian leaders has stoked the confrontation.
The National Intelligence Report is highly relevant to this dangerous escalation of tension in the world's most unstable region. Its timing deflates the war party, while its substance can give fresh impetus to those who have argued that if the conditions are right Iran can be encouraged to enter into a real negotiation. That state has been regionally strengthened by the US policy disasters in Iraq, but shares a fundamental interest in stability there.
Assuming the best combined estimates of 16 US intelligence services are reliable - and their candour in admitting previous mistakes should be recognised and commended - there is now a real opportunity to pursue a diplomatic effort for a grand bargain with Iran. This would require security guarantees in return for undertakings by its leaders on terrrorism and peaceful relations with their neighbours. It is much the better way.