By sheer coincidence, my week started with a breakfast at the American Embassy when Ambassador Ross Wilson invited four journalists to break bread with Gregory Schulte, US ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), during which we received a briefing on recent developments concerning nuclear proliferation in the region, with a specific emphasis on Iranian intentions of going nuclear.

Looking at my notes taken during both encounters, I see a huge gap between the positions of Turkey and the US on some topics and especially on Iran.

Turkey is a neighbor of Iran. Both countries wore themselves out over the centuries with continuous wars based on rivalries in a region divided between two main interpretations of Islam, and both found it convenient at the end to lead separate lives away from hostilities. Common borders were drawn in 1635 by the Qasr-i Shirin Treaty, which has never been violated since. Today's Turkey is one of the major buyers of Iranian natural gas and both countries are allies when it comes to fighting a common enemy: the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

Of course Turkey isn't happy with the news that Iran has been trying to go nuclear; on the contrary, Turkey sees this as a threat which would accelerate the nuclear race in the region and as a development with the potential to inflame hostilities in a region beset with armed conflict. A nuclear Iran would tilt the equilibrium, the balance of power in the region, to the detriment of Turkey.

Turkish statesmen have warned Iran several times not to deviate from the confessed path of indulging in nuclear research for peaceful intentions. They have always asked Iran to accommodate IAEA rules and to invite international observers to check on its nuclear facilities.

I have heard Foreign Minister Ali Babacan say very clearly, not only during our flight to and from Muscat but on several occasions, that Turkey would like to see Iran respecting the international community's anxieties over its nuclear ambitions on the one hand and invite the international community to solve the problem over Iran's nuclear intentions through dialogue and diplomacy.

Turkey's position on Iran isn't satisfying to the US. At least that was my impression when I listened to Ambassador Schulte the other day. He believes that Iran is on the way to becoming a nuclear country, a strong possibility which has to be stopped at all costs. Ambassador Schulte proposes a total embargo and economic sanctions on Iran.

What Washington demands from Turkey is action rather than words, denouncing Iran for its intention of going nuclear, or as far as I gathered from what Ambassador Schulte said during our encounter at the breakfast table. “As a member of NATO and a strategic ally of the US, Turkey has to conduct its policy toward Iran in accordance with US and NATO policies,” he affirmed. So Turkey, in his eyes, would be in a better position to help isolate Iran by sanctions and embargoes.

Ambassador Schulte's visit to Ankara to conduct talks with officials from the Turkish administration is a second step to apply pressure on Turkey. Two weeks ago, in a surprise diversion of his five-country tour, Dick Cheney, the vice president of the US, dropped by Ankara and talked with various officials, both civilian and military. His talks manifestly revolved around Iran.

Gareth Porter, an American journalist, writing after the visit, claimed that Cheney went as far as soliciting support from Turkish leaders for a US strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The charge was denied off handedly by Ambassadors Wilson and Schulte.

The Americans are still shy about talking about a possibility of war with Iran. They feel and convey their feelings without any reservation that Iran has the intention of going nuclear and that the Iranian leadership would never stop until their scientists are able to make a nuclear weapon. They very much doubt that embargoes and economic sanctions would work, but when the topic comes to the possibility of war, they blink their eyes.

The dilemma the world community faces is obvious: Iran claims that its nuclear program is for energy producing purposes and peaceful, for its part the US believes Iran has every intention of going nuclear. Who is telling the truth? Who is more trustworthy? Keeping in mind what the US claimed and what the world community found out afterwards about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before American troops entered Iraqi territory, the question is all the more pertinent.

“We are going about it differently now,” Ambassador Schulte assured. Rather than going forth unilaterally, the Americans are trying to solve this problem through the participation of the world community, using the United Nations Security Council and NATO as international conduits and asking its allies to act in unison. They are inviting Turkey to join the united front against Iran by behaving in consort with NATO and the US.

The question of “What else should Turkey do to accommodate the US policy toward Iran?” remains unanswered by both ambassadors.

There is a huge gap between the two countries' policies on Iran -- a gap which does not seem to be easily bridgeable. Some even suggest that an attempt to close the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is somehow related to Washington's intention of dealing with Iran before the American presidential elections, due to take place in November. A party under the threat of closure is more vulnerable and more open to outside pressure.