Of course, the issue has received so much publicity because it followed the UN Security Council's decision at the end of March to give Iran 30 days to stop its uranium-enrichment programme. Tehran refused to comply with the UN request and announced that it has for the first time produced enriched uranium outside of the laboratory, justifying its continuation of the programme on the grounds that it was not for the development of nuclear weapons.

Why has Bush chosen this story to be so fussy about? There are so many scandals and embarrassing exposes in Washington these days.

The Hersh article on a planned attack is only one more chapter in a long drawn-out drama. Washington and its Western allies have been trying to stop Iran from developing nuclear-weapons capacity, which would endanger the whole region and create instability. This time around, the US is joined not only by Britain but also Germany and France in agreement that Iran is moving along a dangerous path. Of course Tehran has time and time again denied that its nuclear programme is intended for military purposes, saying that it has the right as a sovereign nation to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

With Iraq looming in the not-too-distant background, the Bush administration has from early on wooed the international community to form a multinational coalition in a unified front. The US has learned some hard-won lessons over the past few years about dealing with the international community and the UN.

China and Russia are the two members of UN Security Council that have proved most recalcitrant on the Iranian issue, speaking out publicly against US plans and opposing sanctions. In Washington the mood towards these two superpowers is shifting fast. The Americans are feeling more comfortable working with the Chinese than the Russians these days. When China's President Wu Jintao visits Washington next week the Iranian crisis will certainly be at the top of the agenda.

Apart from their gigantic economic ties, the US has become more flexible in dealing with and bringing up sensitive international issues with China, often finding it has more grounds for common action than it does with Russia. The assessment is growing common in Washington that Moscow is acting more and more arrogant and less inclined to cooperate.

What is particularly dangerous in the Iranian crisis, as was the case in Iraq, is that it could become a battle of wills between the two leaders - Bush versus the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

For Bush, the personal stakes are extremely high as he seeks to assert his role as leader of the world's most powerful country and strengthen his vision of the US global strategy.

For Ahmadinejad, it is an ideal contest. He has nothing to lose in engaging in an aggressive discourse and continuing with his country's nuclear ambitions.

He knows that he has earned himself a place on the world stage because he is the only Muslim leader still in power who has stood up and consistently defied the US.

Ahmadinejad has called the US battle plans "psychological warfare" designed to intimidate his country into compliance.

What is essential, however, is that diplomacy, threats and even military planning do not develop into a full-blown confrontation, especially with the nuclear option so clearly on the table. Regardless of contingency planning, the danger is very real with both leaders determined to emerge from the quagmire as victors.