LONDON, Jan. 26 (Xinhuanet) -- Amid Washington's recent tough remarks on Iran over the nuclear issue, US staunch ally Britain this time does not seem to give support for a tough stance towards Tehran.

    Days after US President George W. Bush said military action against Iran's nuclear program had not been ruled out and Vice President Dick Cheney said Iran topped the list of world trouble spots and Israel could decide to bomb its nuclear facilities, the Sunday Times newspaper reported on Jan. 23 that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has drawn up Britain's case against a military strike on Iran amid fears Washington may seek support for a new conflict.

    According to the paper, Straw makes the case for a "negotiated solution" to thwart Iran's suspected ambition to produce nuclear weapons.

    Peaceful solution led by Britain, France and Germany is "in the best interests of Iran and the international community," while referring to "safeguarding Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology," said the paper, which noted that the approach contrasts with the British government's tough stance over Iraq.

    British media also reported that in his talks with US Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice in Washington on Monday, Straw was even trying to persuade Washington to back the use of diplomacy over military actions against Tehran.

    Although a loyal supporter of Washington on many international issues, Britain embarked on a different path from the United States towards solving the Iran nuclear issue since October 2003.

    Together with Germany and France, Britain has adopted a more cautious diplomacy towards Iran and led efforts to get the countryto stop its sensitive nuclear work.

    In November, as Washington consistently recommended that the time had come to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, Britain, Germany and France responded by arguing that the diplomatic route had not yet been exhausted and ultimately would prove more effective than the threat or even imposition of international sanctions.

    Britain has several reasons for supporting a diplomatic response to Iran, local analysts said.

    After the experience in Iraq and the very public failure to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction, Britain is low on credibility.

    With Iraq suffering almost daily bloody violence and the future of the rebuilding process hard to foretell, Britain, which hopes to find an exit strategy after Iraq's Jan. 30 national elections, would never want to see another war in the Middle East while Iraq is still in trouble.

    As Britain's next general elections draw near, probably in May,some people even expect the British government to profit from a peaceful solution to the Iran nuclear issue, which would prevent more chaos and instability in the Middle East.

    However, if within the first few months of 2005, Tehran has still not decided or been pressured to give up its controversial nuclear programs, some European countries would have to admit that their constructive engagement has failed.

    With the United States determined to tackle the Iran nuclear issue by a hard line, Blair would find himself in a very awkward position when he is forced to decide whether to support the diplomacy or to say yes to Washington's possible military action. Enditem