Another escalation of international tension over Iran's nuclear programme has occurred following the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency. It finds that Iran has ignored the IAEA's call to suspend all enrichment of nuclear fuel and defied it by accelerating its programme over the last month.
President Ahmadinejad reinforced that defiance by saying his country has no intention of bowing to UN sanctions, should they be considered when the Security Council meets this week. Iran renewed its stance yesterday, vowing to ignore a likely council resolution tabled by UN ambassadors from the US, Britain and France.
The IAEA says it has no hard evidence that Iran is indeed developing nuclear arms under the cover of its civilian nuclear power programme, but many suspect it is. The prospect disturbs not only the major powers - most of whom have been in direct talks with Iran - but many neighbouring states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as other nuclear powers like Israel, India and Pakistan. If Iran is indeed determined to become a nuclear power it would destabilise the region and set a grave precedent for nuclear proliferation elsewhere.
That is why this is a serious political confrontation. The Security Council has several options available, ranging from a solemn statement warning Iran to comply to consideration of sanctions or military force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Any sanctions are subject to a veto by the permanent members. Russia and China have made it clear they do not support punitive action, whereas France has recently joined Britain and the US in taking a more robust attitude, albeit well short of the Bush administration's militancy. Given these variations it will probably be months before a clear picture emerges, or whether the UN will be bypassed.
The crisis is made much more serious by the Bush administration's policy that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, combined with its outright refusal to engage Iran directly in negotiations. The logic of this position seems to point inexorably to escalating towards a military confrontation. Tension is being escalated by mutual obduracy in Tehran and Washington, putting radicals in the ascendant. Military action by the US outside UN auspices would be a dangerous folly. It would precipitate regional turmoil, escalate anti-American terrorism, disrupt world oil supplies and therefore the international economy, and reinforce popular support for the Iranian radicals whose sources of power are uneven and precarious.
President Bush says he supports a political and diplomatic approach but refuses to engage directly with Iran. It is a contradictory policy. He should listen to powerful voices in his own party who advocate negotiations on a broad agenda including security guarantees, economic benefits and political dialogue.There are clear indications that key elements of the Iranian regime are willing to respond positively to such a constructive opening.