US President George Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder may be gearing up for a war of words similar to that of 2002, when the two leaders positioned themselves on opposite sides of the debate over military intervention in Iraq.

This time, the dispute is over Iran, and how to deal with the country's flagrant snubbing of the international community's prescriptions for a proposed nuclear program. Last week, the Islamic republic ignored the International Atomic Energy Agency's requests that it cease its uranium conversion program. And negotiations with European countries, who had hoped to exchange economic incentives for a moratorium on the production of fissile material that could be used to build an atomic bomb, have faltered.

On Friday, Bush said in an interview with Israeli television that the use of force against Iran could not be ruled out. Then, over the weekend, Schröder told a meeting of supporters in Hannover, and then two German tabloids, that as long as he was in office, participation in military options would remain a no-go for his government. Schröder is currently trailing his center-right challenger in the run-up to September elections -- circumstances similar to 2002 when he voiced his opposition to the Iraq war. Back then, German public opinion was strongly opposed to military intervention in Iraq, and the position he took was said to have contributed to turning turning his political fortunes at the polls.

Today, German public opinion has hardly changed with regard to the use of military force, and the strong pacifist undercurrent that has marked the post-war political landscape is as strong as ever. But with the US military currently overstretched in Iraq, it's hard to imagine that the United States is even capable of using force to deter Tehran. Certainly, air strikes might be possible, but even bombing could not guarantee the program's complete elimination -- and it could further enflame an already tense regional situation.

So if the chances of US military intervention are actually low, why was Schröder so eager to voice such an opinion? Could he be trying to launch his comeback at the polls by taking a stance similar to that of 2002? It's interesting to note that Schröder made his comments to both a large German tabloid, Bild am Sonntag, and a magazine popular in the former East Germany, Super Illu. Recent voter polls in the eastern part of the country show an increasing political shift toward the left, traditionally an alcove for anti-war sentiment.

On Monday, commentators had Schröder's and Bush's comments firmly under the scope.

Left-leaning Frankfurter Rundschau, which is owned by Schröder's Social Democratic Party, criticizes Bush's comments as dangerous, saying that the last time he took the big stick out of the bag, it turned out to be the tool he used to resolve the conflict. "Bush's escalation is thus a blow to the Europeans' diplomacy." The paper says that if the new conservative-nationalist government in Tehran follows the route it seems to be on, the situation could escalate. Commenting on Schröder's weekend statements, the paper insists they were "led by his own self interest. But were also correct."

Other papers are less interested in Bush's statements than Schröder's response. Conservative daily Die Welt says Schröder should be ashamed of himself, and that his political positioning would neither help international affairs nor his re-election campaign. "Blunt words are allowed in election campaigns. But this is not a licence to jeopardize delicate global political affairs." The domestic context has changed, the paper writes, forecasting that the chancellor would lose the September election. "2005 is not 2002. History does not repeat itself."

While financial daily Handelsblatt admits that Schröder appeared to have excellent political instincts with regard to the German electorate, it's far from enthusiastic about his skills in foreign policy. In the age of terrorism, the paper writes, there can be different opinions regarding the use of violence as a political means. "But Schröder knows that a strike against Iran is not on the agenda and that the USA is politically and militarily incapable of carrying one out. And yet he misuses Bush's remarks in order to score points in the election campaign. In doing so, he endangers the crucial solidarity of the West."

The Financial Times Deutschland is equally blunt in a lead editorial entitled "Repeat Offender." "Schröder's attempt to win the election by portraying himself as the peaceful chancellor is not only a transparent maneuver. It is factually wrong, and it is stupid," the commentator writes. Factually wrong "because the Americans are by no means on the verge of striking Iran, as they were before with Iraq." Bush was only repeating the US position that violence is the last option to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "Clever security policy always keeps all options open, not least in order to keep up a threatening stance." Schröder's move is also "stupid, because precisely the threatening stance that the Americans and Europeans so laboriously have built up, has now been torn down."