|
West resigns itself to a nuclear Iran
WESTERN governments face defeat in their attempts to stop Iran from pursuing its drive to become a nuclear power. Officials in London and Washington now privately admit that they must face the painful fact that there is nothing they can do, despite deep suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of researching nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.Yesterday a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would not be deflected from its right to develop nuclear technology by referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. "If they want to destroy the Iranian nation's rights by that course, they will not succeed," he said, adding that Tehran did not need nuclear weapons because they are only used by nations who "want to solve everything through the use of force". Publicly, the US and Britain, the two countries that have adopted the most hawkish stance, are pressing for international action to stop Iran. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week that it was time for the UN to confront Iran's "defiance" over its nuclear programme, while British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that sanctions were now "on the table". But behind the scenes there is no stomach for a fight. The US is the only country that could take military action. But with the US military already seriously overstretched in Iraq and with the mid-term congressional elections approaching there is no impetus in the White House or in Congress for another military adventure. "Iran would be a far tougher country to try to attack than Iraq. It is three times as big and has highly motivated armed forces," a Foreign Office diplomat said yesterday. With military action off the agenda, several senior European officials expressed the view last week that there is widespread pessimism that diplomatic attempts to persuade Tehran to dismantle its nuclear programme stand any chance of success. Sanctions, too, are being dismissed by government officials. "Sanctions hardly ever work anyway and can harm the people rather than the government," a source close to the Foreign Office said. "Anything else we do is highly unlikely to divert Tehran away from developing nuclear technology." The crisis over Iran came to a head last week when Iranian nuclear officials broke 52 seals that had ensured for 14 months that three uranium enrichment research facilities could not be used while Tehran negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Authority under an agreement brokered with the EU. It was a bitter failure by the EU, which had taken the lead over the Americans and put its faith in a policy of "constructive engagement". Led by Britain, France and Germany, the Europeans had offered Iran economic and political inducements if it would abandon its nuclear efforts. But the policy of trying to steer Iran towards a more moderate course backfired in June when Iranians elected as president the hardline Ahmadinejad. Since then he has outraged international opinion by describing the Holocaust as a myth, calling for the state of Israel to be "wiped off the map", and declaring that Iran would not back down "one iota" from the nuclear path. The UN is unlikely to fare any better than the EU. The organisation has no armed forces and its structure lends itself to interminable delays. Though Britain will host a meeting of senior officials from Russia, China, the US, France and Germany tomorrow to try to build a consensus, a board meeting of the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, will not take place until early next month, even though it is billed as an "emergency" meeting. EU officials say in public they hope the IAEA will report Iran to the Security Council to impose sanctions. OPTIONS FOR ACTION LAND INVASION With UN approval out of the question, the US would probably have to go it alone, with even loyal ally Britain a non-starter. US forces are already overstretched in Iraq, and with Congressional mid-term elections approaching, there is no stomach in Washington for another foreign military adventure. AIR STRIKES More feasible than a land invasion, but the preferred option of only a small group of neo-conservatives in the US administration. The model would be Israel's successful air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981. But the political fall-out in the Arab world would be immense. SANCTIONS The official preferred option of the US and the European Union. But likely to be stalled in the Security Council by Russia and China. Could be counter-productive since Iran would react by cutting off oil supplies to the West. Another option is limited sanctions against Iran's leaders, such as travel restrictions and the freezing of bank accounts. SPORT Iran could be banned from international sports events. Conservative MP Michael Ancram has called for the Iranian team to be expelled from this year's World Cup. Any such ban would create outrage among the football-crazy Iranians. FIFA, soccer's governing body, said last month that it would not expel Iran. COMPROMISE Still on the cards despite the bellicose noises coming from Tehran. The Iranians have a reputation for saying no when they mean maybe. A possible deal could involve Russia making nuclear fuel which could be used only for peaceful purposes on its own territory as part of a joint venture with Iran. Would need a face-saving formula to satisfy Iran's national pride. Posted by: ed 2006-01-16 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=139954 |