With conflicting reports on mysterious explosions and US robot spy planes, all eyes are on Iran on Thursday. The language coming from the White House is getting ever-more threatening, but Iran that it is playing by the rules, and Europe has to play the good cop between the two. Germany's papers speculate on how best the international community can convince Iran to give up its nuclear dreams.

The business daily Financial Times Deutschland watches the news from Iran with anxiety, writing that the area is suddenly in a very dangerous position. "The controversy over Iran's atomic weapons program far exceeds the other crisis areas in the world for its explosiveness and its danger." Even more than North Korea, the world needs to deal with Iran, now. "Despite the setbacks, the European approach remains the correct and most promising way. The so-called EU3 (Great Britain, Germany and France) have admittedly little power over the US. Washington has in its hand something that Europe can't offer: the military option." Without this option in the background, the mullahs won't budge. And that's why the US has to cut out its unofficial work alongside Europe. "That means: America has to make it clear that they'll only play the military card when the negotiations with Teheran have definitively failed."

The Berliner Zeitung sees the same trans-Atlantic dynamic at play, but still doesn't miss a chance for a little Washington bashing. "In dealing with Iran, there's a big difference between Europeans and Americans: The former speak, the latter don't....This is the starting position of an unusual trans-Atlantic division of labor: To stop Iran from developing atomic weapons, the Europeans negotiate and woo, while the Americans spy and threaten." No one wants to go to war in Iran, least of all the US, who is already engaged in one costly fight. And, the paper admits, US military might is badly needed. "The US threats must, whether one likes it or not, therefore be taken seriously....As long as the Iranian government has to fear paying a high price for their nuclear dreams, they might still be bought out of them." And while the threat of military reprisals is key to get Iran to the table, it must also be clear that the US will actually go along with the outcome of any negotiations. "They must go even further, to set up talks with Iran themselves. If they don't, the chances for a peaceful solution look bad."

The center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung, meanwhile, carries an interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamel Kharrazi, who gets right to the main point: "I'll say it very clearly: Iran is not striving for nuclear weapons. The construction of the atom bomb is not a part of Iran's strategic defense program." He notes that Iran, as opposed to North Korea, is still bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it has cooperated with atomic inspectors. "We have nothing to hide. This is the biggest difference with North Korea. We want to follow the Japanese model. Japan has no access to nuclear weapons, but uses nuclear technology for peaceful purposes." When asked by the paper why Iran needs a heavy-water reactor (which could be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium), he replies, "For research purposes. Every country needs this technology. But at the moment we don't have such a reactor." Kharrazi also sees the negotiations with Europe going further, and insists that "the Europeans must give us new proposals. Instead of speaking in general terms, we need concrete suggestions in order to realize various important goals." When the interview turns towards the US, the rhetoric becomes more pointed: "One could say that we've become neighbors. Their presence is a fact. But have they therefore become more popular? We have a stable system, and the population participates. If there was a poll, then we'd see who was more popular in the region, us or the Americans."

The Sueddeutsche also carries an editorial on the news of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination. Even though there aren't a lot of warm feelings between Syria and Lebanon, the relationship is too complicated for everyone to jump to the conclusion that Damascus was behind the bombing, the paper says. "The usual question following a murder -- 'who does it help?' -- doesn't lead anywhere in Hariri's case. In any case, it doesn't help Syria at all to have a neighboring country sink into instability and chaos." But facts may not decide the case, especially if the US gets involved. "When America starts pointing fingers without having any proof, it's a bad sign, especially after the experiences of Iraq," it insists.