How to Handle Iran

The Economist:

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council – America, Russia, China, Britain and France – failed to reach consensus on how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions at a special meeting on Monday, January 16th. Instead a session of the International Atomic Energy Agency has been called for February 2nd. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refuses to back down and has warned that economic sanctions on Iran would prove painful for oil importers.

IRAN’S Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to relish a showdown. As senior diplomats of the five big powers at the United Nations (plus Germany) gathered in London on Monday to discuss what to do about Iran’s resumed nuclear research, Mr Ahmadinejad unleashed two fiery statements designed to unsettle – or provoke – his western critics. In one he warned that any effort by the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions on Iran (if the matter is referred there) would send the global oil price rocketing, thus hurting oil importers as much as the producer itself. Then he said Iran would host a special conference questioning the history of the Holocaust, an event he has previously dismissed as a “myth”.

Some sort of international clash has seemed inevitable since Iran decided, last week, to restart work on its nuclear energy programme at three nuclear plants. Three European countries (the EU3 of Germany, France and Britain) promptly called off two years of negotiations with Iran over its domestic nuclear research, saying they had reached a “dead end”. Russia, an ally of sorts with Iran, tried to broker a compromise but then saw its efforts rebuffed. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, said it was deeply concerned about Iran, whose energy research is widely seen as a cover for work on a nuclear weapons programme.

On Sunday the IAEA’s boss, Mohamed ElBaradei, was quoted by Newsweek magazine warning that Iran might be “a few months” from having a usable nuclear weapon. He suggested the stand-off with Iran is reaching a critical point and urged a firm international response: “Diplomacy is not just talking. Diplomacy has to be backed by pressure and, in extreme cases, by force. We have rules. We have to do everything possible to uphold the rules through conviction. If not, then you impose them”. American politicians expressed similarly robust views over the weekend. President George Bush said he hoped to resolve the situation with diplomatic means, but refused to rule out the use of military force as a final option. A senior Republican senator, John McCain, concurred. A Democrat, Evan Bayh, said military strikes might delay Iran’s nuclear development. READ MORE

London calling

Such tough talking might make diplomats’ jobs easier, though few believe military action is imminent. Instead efforts are underway to build a consensus on diplomatic action by countries worried by Iran’s behaviour. The purpose of the London meeting on Monday was to persuade Russia and, possibly, China to support the IAEA in referring Iran to the UN Security Council. A majority on the IAEA's board already favours referral. Now Russia seems willing too. Vladimir Putin, speaking in Moscow after meeting Germany’s new Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said that Russia and western Europe “have very close positions on the Iranian problem,” though he suggested the impasse should be solved “without abrupt, erroneous steps”. Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, promptly added that Russia still expected the problem to be solved diplomatically and without recourse to sanctions. “The question of sanctions against Iran puts the cart before the horse. Sanctions are in no way the best, or the only, way to solve the problem,” he said.

China is less enthusiastic about referring the matter to the Security Council, warning that rival sides should not harden their positions and suggesting that a referral by the IAEA might “complicate” matters. A spokesman for China's foreign ministry called for renewed “negotiations between the EU3 and Iran”. However some analysts hope China would be unwilling to be isolated if other powers agreed on joint action and might abstain rather than oppose a referral. Other states have expressed concern at the showdown. Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told the BBC on Monday that Iran’s leader was issuing “extreme” statements, though he also criticised the West for its part in raising tensions. Israel (despite suggestions it has its own covert nuclear weapons programme) is especially worried about Iran, not least because Mr Ahmadinejad has suggested the Jewish state should be “wiped off the map”.

What might happen if the IAEA does refer Iran to the UN? Britain’s foreign minister, Jack Straw, expressed hope on Monday that mere referral to the Council might be enough to persuade Mr Ahmadinejad to back down. Others think some limited political sanctions could help, such as denial of visas for sporting teams or for members of Iran's regime (similar actions are thought to have helped in the past in dealing with the recalcitrant Serb government, for example). Unlike the North Koreans, who seem not to mind their isolation, Iranians take pride in their growing contacts around the world and are keen to be accorded the status and respect they feel their ancient civilisation deserves. That said, however, Iran's new president seems dangerously unfazed by world opinion.

After that might come the threat of economic sanctions, including an oil embargo. It would be tougher to get widespread support for that. Several key countries, including Russia (which also recently signed a $1 billion weapons contract with Iran), China, India and Japan are reluctant to put their oil and gas contracts and their pipeline projects at risk. Despite Mr Ahmadinejad’s bluster, such targeted sanctions might be the one thing that could get Iran's full attention. Its energy industry is dependent on foreign investment for future expansion and modernisation. Meanwhile, India is an important supplier of refined petrol to Iran.

And if the UN could not agree on sanctions, Europe and America might impose some of their own instead. They would also try to build a coalition of willing allies, rather as America has orchestrated the Proliferation Security Initiative, an informal posse of countries prepared to take tough action to block shipments of illicit goods and materials around the world related to weapons of mass destruction. None of that would be easy, but backing down in the face of Iranian defiance would be unattractive too. Mr Ahmadinejad has, so far, calculated that he stands to benefit most from a showdown with his critics. He needs persuading that is not the case.