Israel's dogs of war are straining at the leash to attack Iran - can Barack Obama stop them? It was only a few weeks ago, after all, when Israeli sabre-rattling was reaching fever pitch over deepening concern in Jerusalem that Iran was starting to transfer key components of its nuclear programme to its new underground facility at Fordow, on the outskirts of the holy city of Qom. The Fordow complex is built deep beneath a range of mountains, offering protection against even the most sophisticated bunker-buster bombs. Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, recently coined the phrase "zone of immunity" to describe the point at which the key elements in Iran's nuclear programme are rendered immune from Western attack. The Israelis argue that if pre-emptive action is not taken soon, the West will be impotent to prevent the Iranians building an atom bomb - assuming their leadership has taken the decision so to do. But Mr Obama's ability to hold off Israel's dogs of war depends to a large extent on whether the recent round of UN sanctions on Iran has a salutary effect on the ayatollahs, and persuades them to demonstrate that they are serious about resuming talks. The omens are not looking good. The sanctions may be affecting the living standards of ordinary Iranians, but that has not stopped the regime from stumping up an estimated £1 billion to fund the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's latest arms purchases from Russia. Syria is Iran's closest regional ally, and the ayatollahs are determined to ensure the Assad regime survives its current travails. To this end, they are making sure the regime's supporters have ample ammunition to crush the anti-government protest movement. Nor is there any suggestion that Tehran is serious about reviving negotiations - due to start on April 14 - with the West over the future of its nuclear programme. The Iranians have already resorted to their familiar delaying tactics by raising objections to the talks being held in Istanbul, the venue suggested by Western negotiators. Instead, they have offered Beirut, Damascus or Baghdad as alternatives, none of which can be deemed neutral because of Iran's pernicious influence in all three cities. Of more concern, though, is the hardening of the political climate in Tehran following the parliamentary elections which resulted in a strong showing for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime's Supreme Leader. Mr Khamenei, who has the final say on Iran's nuclear ambitions, has sabotaged previous efforts by negotiators to reach a deal with the West. And so long as he maintains this defiant attitude, it is unlikely that any progress will be made, no matter how many sanctions are imposed. At the same time, Iran's nuclear scientists continue to make advances in acquiring all the technical components for a weapons programme: Western experts believe Iran will be able to build an atom bomb within two years. All this spells some coming bad news for Mr Obama. If, by the end of the summer, there is no significant change in Iran's position, then the clamour for military action will start all over again. Israeli officials have already identified September as the best month to launch air strikes, when weather conditions in the Middle East are most conducive to a successful attack. And if that happens, Mr Obama could find himself campaigning for re-election in the midst of the war he has sought desperately to avoid.