A FEW WEEKS AGO there were some encouraging signs that the relationship between the West and Iran over the latter's nuclear ambitions but recently they quickly deteriorated after the Iranian leadership refused to accept United Nations' (UN) proposals of third-party enrichment.

Whatever the possible political reasons for this decision; and there are no doubt many; Iran has granted yet another opportunity for the hardliners in the United States and elsewhere to push for military action and further sanctions.

Iran says it wants major amendments within the framework of a UN nuclear fuel deal which it broadly accepts. It is a move that could unravel the plan and expose Tehran to the threat of harsher sanctions, the European Union's foreign policy chief said on Tuesday.

He said there was no need to rework the UN draft and he and France's foreign minister suggested Tehran would rekindle demands for tougher international sanctions if it tried to undo the plan.

The pressure is definitely building. Among the central planks of the plan opposed by Iran, but requested by the West to cut the risk of an Iranian atom bomb, was for it to send most of its low-enriched uranium reserve abroad for processing all at once.

There is a strong presumption that Iran wants nuclear weapons for sinister purposes as all discussion on the topic is focused almost exclusively on how to stop its enrichment of uranium rather than questioning the motives for doing so.

If Iran is to be taken at its word that it is not seeking nuclear weapons, it is clear that the country's leadership is doing a lousy job at convincing the international community. The decision to keep secret the construction of a third enrichment site in Qom has not helped either.

Last week's nuclear talks offered a golden opportunity for Iran to secure its right to nuclear power, and at the same time alleviate concerns over its ambitions for nuclear weapons. This opportunity was missed and the parameters were altered once more.

Of course, constant Israeli threats of possible attack are just as unhelpful, but the Iranian leadership is perfectly capable of easing tensions - should it choose to - by following a path of complete transparency.

Whilst it is accepted that belligerence and secrecy may be viewed as a useful bargaining tool by the Iranian leadership, the consequences of this cat-and-mouse game could be costly indeed.

Although war might seem a distant threat at present, those urging military action use every Iranian delay and concealment as evidence of Iran's duplicity. That Iran needs to manoeuvre in negotiations is understood, but its leaders are in danger of crossing their political Rubicon.

It has reached the stage that some are saying the war in Afghanistan was called a war of necessity by its proponents, Iraq a war of choice, but Iran may be the first war of invitation.