Four years ago, President George Bush, claiming that Saddam Hussein possessed so-called weapons of mass destruction, talked the United States into what has turned into a disastrous war in Iraq.

As it turned out, Mr. Bush and his backer-in-chief, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, used deliberately 'sexed-up' intelligence reports to bolster their war plans. Supposedly, Saddam was capable of firing off missiles with biological contaminants that could hit London in 45 minutes. At the United Nations, Colin Powell, Mr. Bush's Secretary of State, ostensibly provided impeachable evidence of Iraq's advanced programme to develop a nuclear bomb.

Saddam Hussein was easily overthrown and eventually executed for crimes against humanity. Iraq, though, remains in the throes of an undeclared civil war, wracked by violence as the United States wages its amorphous War on Terror.

More recently, that war seemed about to encompass Iran, Iraq's Shi'ite Muslim neighbour, which Mr. Bush branded as a supporter of terrorism, if not a full-blown terrorist state. The justification for conflict with Iran, ironically, has parallels to arguments for the overthrow of Saddam. Tehran's government, it was said, was pursuing a programme to develop nuclear bombs. The Iranians insisted that their nuclear programme was peaceful, for power generation.

Much of the world was concerned about America's motives and Mr. Bush's apparent posturing for war. At the same time, people were wary about Tehran's lack of transparency about its programme.

For now, it seems, the more rational elements of the world can breath a bit easier. It is unlikely that either American or Israeli bombs will soon rain down on Iran's nuclear facilities, a development that would undoubtedly lead to a wider Middle East conflict and deepened global instability.

Surprisingly, if not paradoxically, it is the Americans themselves - more specifically their intelligence agencies - who are to be thanked for this.

This week, U.S. National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) reported that while the Iranians previously tried to develop the bomb, this was halted in 2003 when Tehran's nuclear programme was discovered. The Iranian leadership, the NIE concluded, was now less determined to develop the bomb. If the programme was to restart, the report said, it would be between 2010 and 2015 before Tehran had a nuclear weapon.

Significantly, this report did not pretend to be nice towards those who hold power in Tehran; but it did not paint the Iranian leadership, as Washington is wont to do, as a bunch of madmen running helter-skelter towards conflict. They are portrayed as pragmatic politicians concerned about national security and regional influence, who apply cost-benefit analyses to their geo-political and ideological equations. That's the kind of leadership with which deals can be done.

The cynics may claim that the timing and tone of this report - as the American political season heads into high gear - was orchestrated to temper Mr. Bush and the more hawkish members of Congress and those on the hustings with pretensions to the presidency. In this scenario, there is basis for serious engagement with Iran, not just on the nuclear issue, but on its role in Iraq where Tehran exerts real influence. That is important to people in small, weak countries, especially, who believe that the exertion of power is not the only way to resolve conflicts.