Iran. The nuclear squeeze

But who is squeezing whom?

THE course of Iran's relations with the outside world seldom runs smooth. Just when Britain, France and Germany thought they had at last won agreement from Iran to suspend its most troubling nuclear activities, so that negotiations on a broader tension-defusing deal could take place, hardliners in Tehran seemed to dig their heels in. The Europeans had been hoping to avert a showdown later this month at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over whether Iran's nuclear transgressions should be reported to the UN Security Council. But a last-minute dispute over the scope of the suspension left it uncertain whether it would be in place in time. One of Iran's negotiating team threatened it would pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if western countries piled on the pressure.

Nor is Iran sounding conciliatory in other ways. Its defence minister said pointedly this week that it could now mass-produce missiles (by churning them out just like cars, he joked) that it has in the past claimed are capable of striking both Israel and American bases in the Gulf. Another spokesman was reported to say that Iran had the technical know-how to build a bomb, while still denying that it had any intention of doing so. Iran appears also to have helped Hisbullah, to which it has long sent cash and arms, launch an unmanned aerial vehicle from Lebanon on a photographic mission over northern Israel. Such drones can also carry bombs.

None of this was coincidence. A previous deal that the Europeans thought they had struck a year ago with Iran to suspend its uranium and plutonium programmes unravelled when IAEA inspectors kept uncovering new evidence of Iran's nuclear cheating and Iran huffily refused to end its manufacture of parts for uranium-enrichment machines, and then went on to produce the gas that is spun in such centrifuges to produce uranium - which can be used for nuclear fuel or bombs. Since then, Iranian officials have insisted that any new suspension they agree to will be short-lived: six months at the most.

The Europeans have also taken a tough line this time: the agreement reached with Iran specifies no deadline, and they insist it must include all work towards enrichment. They will not negotiate the second element of the deal, which would include trade and political concessions to Iran, as well as offers of nuclear co-operation, while the Iranians are busily stocking up to start enrichment whenever they choose. And while Iran insists it has a right to enrich uranium under the NPT, the Europeans, pointing to past breaches of nuclear safeguards, want it to agree not to do so - as many other countries have done.

But hardliners in Iran think they hold a strong hand. Just as the Europeans are refusing to pay much up front to get Iran to reinstate the suspension of uranium enrichment that was supposed to have started a year ago, so the Iranians may calculate they need not sacrifice much to avoid referral to the UN Security Council. There, whatever the tone of the latest report from the IAEA that was being finalised this week, they hope for the blocking support of China and Russia. China has already said the issue should be handled at the IAEA, not the UN. And Russia hopes to continue its lucrative nuclear commerce with Iran, having just completed the country's first power reactor.

So even if this week's hurdles can be overcome, Iran may have no intention of pursuing real negotiations with the Europeans. Instead it could be playing for time in the hope that eventually others will tire of the issue - or while it carries on working towards nuclear break-out in ways the IAEA's inspectors don't know about.

That is the worry among Israelis and among some in the Bush administration. Israel has already hinted that, if the Iranians cannot be stopped by other means, it may consider military strikes at nuclear facilities, similar to its raid on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. Hence Iran's unveiled warnings of its ability to strike back using missiles and other means.

Such talk alarms the Europeans: Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has said it is “inconceivable” that America would strike at Iran, or give the nod to Israel to do so. America's secretary of state, Colin Powell, also recently advised Israel to rely on diplomacy rather than force.

Meanwhile the Europeans know that, if Iran is to be diverted from any nuclear weapons plans, their own inducements will not be enough. At some point America will need to join the diplomacy too. So far, with a long list of complaints about Iran's behaviour, America has refused. But just before the IAEA next takes up Iran's case, in two weeks' time, Mr Powell will have a rare chat with his Iranian counterpart at a meeting of Iraq's neighbours at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. Though with both countries still in uncompromising mood, the cause of diplomacy may not advance very far.

• Primary Source