Iran dominated the headlines this week. On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered to join the European Union in its direct talks with Iran if Teheran halted its uranium enrichment programme. Then on Thursday, six major world powers - the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany - agreed on a package combining incentives and penalties to try to convince Iran to curb its nuclear programme, a so-called 'carrots and sticks' approach.

Both offers are significant and should not be dismissed outright. The fact that the US has said it is ready to enter into direct talks with Iran - even though this is conditional on the Islamic Republic stopping its enrichment programme - is an important step in the right direction. One can argue whether in the circumstances such a pre-condition was necessary, but in any case Dr Rice's offer does signify a shift in policy towards Iran, and this is to be welcomed.

The Bush administration has in fact been criticised, both at home and by its allies and fellow permanent Security Council members, to make some gesture towards Iran so as to break the diplomatic deadlock over this nuclear crisis. Many observers questioned how the US - the world's only superpower and the country which is leading the international community in its efforts to stop Tehran from producing nuclear weapons - was not prepared to speak to Iran when so much is at stake.

Of course, there is a long history of mistrust and animosity between the US and Iran which has to be taken into consideration. The two countries, after all, have had no diplomatic relations since 1979 when a mob stormed the US embassy in Tehran and took American diplomats hostage.

However, as a result of this latest proposal I believe Washington has regained the initiative in the crisis and has put the ball squarely in Iran's court. It is true that Iran soon dismissed the offer by saying that it would talk with the US only if it were allowed to continue with its uranium enrichment. However, such a knee-jerk reaction will win Iran no friends and will only increase its international isolation.

Furthermore, many analysts believe the US may have struck a deal with Russia and China - both of whom have so far opposed UN sanctions against Iran and urged Washington to show some flexibility - that if Iran rejects the US offer of talks, Moscow and Beijing will then support a tough new UN Security Council resolution against Iran.

After the six world powers agreed on a package for Iran, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said the international community was willing to resume talks with Iran - which the EU had suspended when Iran resumed its uranium enrichment - if it halted sensitive nuclear activities and added that action would be taken at the United Nations Security Council if Iran did not comply.

Although no details of the proposals are to be released until Iran is briefed on the package, it is thought there may be an offer to help with Iran's civilian nuclear programme and guaranteed supplies of reactor fuel, as well as trade incentives and security guarantees. What will happen next is a direct meeting between the European Union and the Iranians where the agreed package will be presented.

The fact that the foreign ministers of Britain, Germany, France, China, Russia and the United Sates presented a united front towards Iran on Thursday is a very encouraging sign. It is very important that a tough, united diplomatic approach be adopted now in order (one hopes) to prevent a military conflict later. I need not repeat that a military strike against Iran would have many serious consequences and so a diplomatic solution (if this is possible) is definitely a far better option.

Unlike Iraq before the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, I think that international public opinion is not divided over whether Iran intends to make nuclear weapons. I don't think anybody believes Iran when it says its nuclear programmes are for peaceful purposes only. Europe, for example, is not divided into two opposing camps like it was during the build-up to the Iraqi war - which did so much harm to the trans-Atlantic alliance. So it is essential that this unity is maintained and is not threatened by the use of military force against Iran - unless this is an absolutely last resort and no other option is possible. However, even in such a scenario, there would be very dire consequences of such a course of action.

While a military strike against Iran would probably rally support for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - both domestic and in the Muslim world - which the Iranian leader will no doubt welcome - the political and/or economic isolation of Iran is something Mr Ahmadinejad surely fears. International isolation as well as economic sanctions against Tehran, which badly needs foreign investment to combat the country's high unemployment rate, will no doubt hurt the regime of the mullahs. After all, Mr Ahmadinejad was 'elected' on a platform of economic well-being and anti-corruption and not international isolation.

It is true that one can argue that sanctions, if it comes to that, could hurt the Iranian people more than the regime, and could also rally the Iranian people around their leaders. The challenge, therefore, is to target sanctions at the government and its leaders rather than directly at the man in the street.

The important thing is for the international community to remain united in its dealings with Iran, as the slightest crack in its resolve to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons will be cleverly exploited by Tehran.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.