Opponents of Iran's nuclear programme are struggling to make a convincing case and are unlikely to gain UN support, writes Lara Marlowe
Tehran's handling of the confrontation over its nuclear power programme has so far been a strategic triumph. Iran's resumption of uranium conversion in Isfahan last week left the E3 (Britain, France and Germany) and the US with no good options.
This self-described, four-nation "international community" is unlikely to obtain the UN Security Council resolution it seeks against Iran. A military intervention - again threatened by President Bush in an interview with Israeli television last weekend - would probably create more problems for the US than it would solve. Iran's underground facilities are scattered. Experts predict that bombing raids would barely slow the programme, would strengthen Iranian nationalism, and inflame anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.
Most galling to the Americans and Europeans, Iran has cloaked itself in international legality. Before the yellow-cake uranium ore was fed into the conversion facility on August 8th, Iran waited for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to return and install their cameras.
Since the Islamic Republic was caught cheating in 2002, Tehran has become an almost model student of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, abiding by the Additional Protocol, which allows surprise inspections. The implicit threat to pull out of the Protocol - or leave the NPT altogether - is a powerful diplomatic weapon. An unsupervised Iran would be far more dangerous than an Iran that co-operates, says the IAEA.
US officials have described Iran's decision to resume processing uranium as a "violation" of its November 2004 agreement with the E3. But that agreement specifically noted that "this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation."
Article IV of the NPT states: "Nothing in this treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the parties to the treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination . . ."
The IAEA, Iran, and most members of the Non-Aligned Movement say this means that as a party to the 1968 treaty, Iran has the right to ensure its nuclear power programme can function. "The NPT was never intended to prevent a country from having access to the fuel cycle," says an official at the IAEA. "This legislation offered everyone the right to the fuel cycle in return for the commitment not to produce weapons. The fact is that Iran legally has the right to every aspect of a [ civil] nuclear programme."
The NPT also called for "the liquidation of ... existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons". Yet Washington, London and Paris are not about to give up their "nukes".
On the contrary, Mr Bush renounced the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to pursue the "star wars" programme and is now miniaturising nuclear warheads for use as "bunker-busters".
Pakistan and India exploded their first nuclear devices seven years ago. Last week, Pakistan, which shares a border with Iran, tested a cruise missile. In July, Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh concluded an extensive agreement on nuclear co-operation with Mr Bush. India is not a party to the NPT.
As the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington notes: "The United States is proposing to change 35 years of nonproliferation policy by finding a way for a country that has developed nuclear weapons capability outside the boundaries of the NPT to participate in the system." Mr Bush's agreement with India violates the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, and the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which ban co-operation with non-signators of the NPT.
Yet India had the nerve to demand the freezing of sensitive Iranian activities at the IAEA meeting last week. It took three days for 35 IAEA members to reach a consensus. China and Russia, which have billions of dollars in oil and weapons contracts with Tehran, oppose taking the issue to the Security Council. Malaysia, Brazil, Syria, Cuba, Algeria and Argentina supported Iran. Pursuit of the nuclear power programme has struck a nationalist chord among the often divided Iranian population. In discussing nuclear matters, Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, talks about the rights of the Iranian nation, rather than the Islamic Republic.
In the unlikely event the Security Council votes on the Iranian programme, the best Washington could hope for would be a watered-down resolution that would neither authorise military action nor enact economic sanctions. With oil at $67 per barrel, no one wants to take Iranian crude off the market.
Equally dangerous for Mr Bush, Iran exerts considerable influence in Iraq. The Dawa and SCIRI parties - the two main Shia Muslim groups in Iraq - were nurtured by Tehran for two decades. The Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, is a member of Dawa. President Jalal Talabani, though a Kurd, also has strong links with Iran, where he took refuge during the inter-Kurdish war of the late 1990s. In Afghanistan too, Iran pulls many strings. The province of Herat lives on trade with Iran, and the Hazara (Afghan Shia) look to Tehran.
None of which answers the fundamental question of whether Iran intends to pursue a military nuclear programme. Though the Tehran government has never said so, the answer is almost certainly yes. "I'm sure they want to have nuclear weapons," says Prof Elie Kheir, a specialist in strategic studies. "In their neighbourhood, Israel, Pakistan and India are nuclear powers. It's the only way they can protect themselves."
There are powerful psychological reasons for Iran to seek nuclear weapons. Iraq attacked Iran with chemical weapons during the 1980-1988 Gulf War, and the world was silent. With US bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout Central Asia, and the US 5th fleet headquartered in nearby Bahrain, Iran is virtually surrounded by US forces.
Prof Kheir says Mr Bush must stop acting as the sole arbiter of nuclear regulation. "If the Americans and Europeans want to do something, the treaty must be respected in its entirety, by all members, including themselves. It must apply to everyone, not just Iran."