Tactics and Deals: The Options for the World

Bronwen Maddox, The Times:

Russia yesterday dangled the possibility that it can still strike a deal with Iran. That is certainly its own fervent hope. Under its offer, it would send Iran the fuel for its nuclear reactors but withhold the technology which would enable it to develop weapons.

At the moment, Russia appears to be alone in thinking Tehran might still accept this plan — but if it does, so much the better. But if Iran, as expected, rejects the offer or stalls, then it will almost certainly be hauled before the United Nations Security Council.

And what then? READ MORE

It has become commonplace in the two years of this row to fret over the difficulties of getting tough action from the Council.

Some countries on the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN watchdog, have given this as a reason not to refer Iran at all.

But as the moment gets closer, and attention has focused on what the Security Council might do, governments have sketched out a list of options.

In ascending order of toughness, these are:

Censure by the Council

Pros: Well worth doing, say British diplomats. They point to the effect that UN condemnation of Syria’s role in Lebanon has had on Damascus.

Cons: May look feeble.

Ban on uranium enrichment by Iran

Pros: Plugs the gap in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has adroitly exploited, allowing it legally to develop nuclear power.

Cons: Iran would probably say this contradicts its rights under the NPT, and ignore it.

“Cultural sanctions”

Ban on travel by Iranian diplomats, and on taking part in sports competitions.

Pros: Costless, yet minded acutely by ordinary Iranians.

Cons: Effects unpredictable. Could turn Iranians against the UN, not their regime.