The much-awaited nuclear talks between the US+5 Great powers and Iran have concluded without any breakthrough in Geneva. However what is of interest is the fact that the United States has decided to completely revise its policy vis--vis the Iranian nuclear programme. What has been the reason for this complete 180 degree turn by the US? Is it the fact that the US has realised that it has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan and cannot afford to open another front with Iran? Or is it the fact that Iran due to its perseverance has finally brought the US down on its knees? Should a nuclear power like Pakistan learn a lesson from Iranian counterparts? The White House had previously reiterated that it wouldn't be involved in any pre-negotiations with Tehran unless it gave up uranium enrichment. So, why has the US made a shift in its policy towards Iran now? Some within the Bush Administration are for diplomacy but term reversal in the policy as Diplomatic Malpractice. By agreeing to suspend its demand for cessation of uranium enrichment, Washington is signalling to Tehran that it need not adhere to the current United Nations Security Council resolutions. So, rather than reinforcing diplomacy the US has shown that its threats were empty. Recently, Iran has announced that it now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a significant increase in the number from earlier 3,000 centrifuges as previously said in its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. This announcement is yet another act of defiance by Iran in the face of demands by the US and other great powers for Tehran to halt its enrichment programme. However, Iran has stated that the US and the other great powers have tempered their demands, asking it not to freeze enrichment but rather not to expand its current programme beyond 6,000 centrifuges. So, the US and the others have no problem as long as the programme is not expanded. It must be remembered that uranium can be used as nuclear reactor fuel or as the core for atomic warheads, depending on the degree of enrichment. The workhorse of Iran's enrichment programme was the P-1 centrifuge, which was run in cascades of 164 machines. But this year in February the Iranian officials confirmed that they had started using the IR-2 centrifuge that can churn out enriched uranium at more than double the rate. Tensions increased further when in July, this year, Iran test-fired missiles in the Gulf, including one it says could reach the Jewish State and the US bases in the Middle East. The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice has summarised the four-year arc of her administration's diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran's nuclear programme. The decision to reverse four years of US policy and meet Iranian negotiators in Geneva is described as "a one time event" by her designed solely to hear Iran's response to the latest European offer. But what was Iranians response? Nothing, the Iranians didn't respond at all. Instead Tehran describes Washington's decision to attend the talks in Geneva as a victory for the revolution. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone further and called on his followers to "prepare for a new post-American world." What has been Washington's response? To give more time to Iran. However, Rice and the other big power representatives have set a two-week deadline for a firm answer from Iran to their latest negotiating offer which ended on July 31. Iran has been offered a rich technical and trade package by the European Union. The Bush Administration has also promised to support Iranian construction of a light-water reactor and provide it with nuclear fuel. In addition, the US will help overhaul of Iran's energy infrastructure and cooperate in high-technology industries. Tehran, at any point, can simply walk away, keeping its rewards. Apart from this, the US plans to open diplomatic outpost in Iran. Despite being offered lucrative and generous incentives by the US and the big powers, Iranians are holding on to their stance- not to suspend enrichment activities. Tehran asserts that it had previously done so, from October 2003 to August 2005, in order to allow negotiations with the Europeans to proceed, but those negotiations went nowhere. This time it has no intention of doing so as its enrichment is only for its nuclear power programme which is for producing fuel for civilian energy production. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed that they wouldn't accept any threats in negotiations with major world powers over its nuclear drive. He categorically added, "Iran's red lines are very clear." Though Israel and the US have both refused to rule out military action against Iran, many see the recent "softening" of the American attitude towards Iran as a realisation of weakness of the US towards the latter. The US had imposed unilateral economic sanctions on Iran for nearly three decades, but still failed to get Iranian compliance. Ms Condoleezza Rice says that if the Iranians don't come to terms in two weeks, the United States will try to get a fourth round of penalties adopted at the United Nations. Will this prove effective? I doubt, as the first three rounds of the UN sanctions have proven ineffective so far, not to mention the resolutions adopted in March this year, adding financial and travel sanctions on Iranian individuals and companies. The Iranian steadfastness and the handling of the nuclear energy programme is a lesson for a country like Pakistan. Pakistan is the only nuclear Muslim state in the world and yet our leaders take dictation from the United States of America. Why? When a non-nuclear state like Iran can hold its ground and show the world that its supreme national interest is superior and hold negotiations only and only on the basis that no one makes any threat than why can't Pakistan. We should hold our heads high in the comity of nations that we are at par with all and inferior to none. The writer is a former research fellow at the Institute of Strategic Studies.