The new year has seen a flurry of US diplomatic activities aimed at imposing new sanctions on Iran for what Teheran says is its civilian nuclear program.

Last year, the US administration had said Iran could send its low-enriched uranium to Russia where it would be enriched and sent back to Teheran for civilian use. The Barack Obama administration is talking about tougher sanctions now because Iran let that offer expire in December.

Imposing new sanctions on Iran, however, seems unnecessary. It would be a hasty decision, too. For one, Iran has not closed the door on negotiations yet. It has announced its conditions, though, saying it is willing to buy civilian-purpose nuclear fuel from other countries, or exchange its uranium stock for fuel with Turkey.

Iran's stance may not satisfy the US, but it shows that Teheran wants to resolve the issue through talks, and diplomacy still has a role to play. Imposing tough sanctions would risk alienating Iran from negotiations.

Though the international community speculates that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program with military purposes, there is still no clear evidence to prove that. Last year, Yukiya Amano, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said there was no evidence to prove that Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons.

That should serve as a warning against imposing more sanctions on Teheran. The six countries negotiating on the nuclear issue with Iran - five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany - should start a new round of negotiations to resolve it instead of rushing to impose new sanctions.

Severer sanctions could be futile, says Ma Xiaolin, a Beijing-based commentator on international affairs and the president of www.blshe.com. Since earlier sanctions have not deterred Iran from obtaining nuclear technology, how can new ones be expected to make any real difference?

They could even be counter-productive. And the real victims of new sanctions are likely to be the Iranian people. Though US officials say the new sanctions would be targeted at the Iranian government, especially the Revolutionary Guard Corp, it is unlikely that ordinary people in that country would not feel the sting.

The Revolutionary Guard operates a wide range of business, from oil to civil infrastructure construction. In market economy, transactions and interests of various entities and persons are intertwined. So if a player of systemic importance suffers a setback, the effect will definitely trickle down to the ordinary people. Just like precision-guided weapons cannot avoid civilian casualty, the sanctions targeted at the Revolutionary Guard cannot protect ordinary Iranians from harm.

Ma says the lack of basic trust between the US and Iran is the cause of the deadlock on the nuclear issue. The US believes Iran's nuclear program is for military purposes, whereas Teheran suspects that Washington wants to subvert its government or even use military force against it.

But the likelihood of US military action against Iran has diminished after Obama assumed office, says Wu Bingbing, an expert on Middle East studies with Peking University. Obama has largely given up his predecessor George W. Bush's goal of "changing" the Iranian government. His goal is much limited: to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms.

On the other hand, Iran's nuclear program is not simply a nuclear issue. Apart from raising Iran's political status in the world, especially the Gulf region, Teheran wants to develop nuclear capability to compel Washington to establish direct links with it, Wu says. Its ultimate goal could be to make the US accept the current Iranian government's legitimacy and restore diplomatic ties.

Since the Iranian hostage crisis more than three decades ago Washington and Teheran have not had official relations. Bush's allegation that Iran was part of the "Axis of Evil" and his invasion of Iraq deepened Iran's suspicion and sense of insecurity. It is highly likely that Teheran had decided to develop nuclear technology in response to a belligerent Bush administration and to boost Iran's security.

Since Iran's nuclear ambition is rooted in its sense of insecurity, the only possible way of resolving the issue is to offer it security guarantee. A nuclear-free Middle East could free Iran of its security concern. All the Arab states and Israel should be part of the nuclear-free zone, and nuclear powers, especially the US, should promise never to deploy or use nuclear weapons there.

If Obama can achieve solid progress in, or at least toward, a nuclear-free Middle East, he would be proving to the world that he truly lives up to his Nobel Peace Prize.

But the nuclear-free zone strategy can bear result only in the long run. For the time being, the US can offer Iran diplomatic recognition and promise of not attacking it in exchange for Teheran's vow never to develop a weapons' grade nuclear program.

After all, the US has a lot to gain by having a friendly Iran, for Iran has the second largest population and the third biggest economy in the Middle East.