In September 2002 the administration of United States President George W. Bush outlined a radically new foreign policy. Known as the Bush doctrine, it sought to prevent other nations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction by adopting a policy of preemptive war (striking first). It also announced that the United States would maintain unquestioned military supremacy by not allowing any other nation to emerge as a potential military rival. The Bush doctrine removed two key pillars that held U.S. foreign policy in place for more than 50 years: the policy of deterrence, which sought to prevent a nuclear attack by threatening massive retaliation and the policy of containment, which held that U.S. military forces needed only to be strong enough to contain any aggressor. Critics characterized the new stance as an arrogant statement of power that threatened to alienate world opinion and jeopardize the role of international institutions such as the United Nations (UN).
Iran's nuclear energy program has proved controversial in recent years. Some international critics say that Iran does not need nuclear energy in view of its vast oil and gas reserves. Iran responds by saying that Western opposition to its nuclear energy program is politically-motivated, since there was no opposition to the Bushehr nuclear power plant project when it started before the 1979 revolution with German involvement. Iran also maintains that if it can use nuclear power to meet some of its domestic energy needs, it will be able to export more oil and generate more foreign currency revenue.
The UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has decided to report Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program. Iran has vowed to resist international pressure, insisting it has the right to civilian nuclear technology. It denies US and EU accusations that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. The IAEA report, which was widely leaked to the media last week, said that the Iranians had begun feeding uranium gas into centrifuges, a first step in a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors or bomb material.
Officials from the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have held talks on Iran's nuclear program without reaching agreement. Britain, France and the US are backing a draft statement calling for Iran to suspend nuclear activities. The statement would require the UN's nuclear agency, the IAEA, to report back within weeks on Iran's compliance. But China and Russia have expressed concern at the deadline and about the Security Council's role. China and Russia are believed to be concerned that the Security Council's role in handling the issue of Iran's nuclear program will overshadow the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency. US Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said the officials had made some progress, but had not agreed on the precise wording of a statement. Any statement that emerges from the Security Council has to have the agreement of all 15 council members. While the US, France and UK want to see a resolution calling on Iran to comply - with the possible threat of further measures if it does not - Russia and China oppose sanctions.
The IAEA reported Iran to the Security Council after months of growing tension over its nuclear research program. Tehran insists it wants only nuclear power - not weapons - but this is not seen as credible by the US and many other Western nations on the IAEA board. The resolution agreed by the IAEA refers to a "lack of confidence" over Iran's intentions, and urges it to halt all research and co-operate fully with inspectors. Iran has so far refused to stop its activities. What could the Security Council do? It is likely to issue a statement at first giving Iran a period of time, yet to be determined, to comply with IAEA demands for it to suspend its activities and cooperate in all ways with the IAEA. If it refuses, a stronger demand can be expected and after that the issue will be whether sanctions might be threatened and applied. These would probably be aimed at individuals not at Iranian trade and would involve travel and financial restrictions. However Russia and China did not agree. Sanctions could not be imposed at once because too many countries on the Security Council oppose them. China and Russia, both veto holders, are against at the moment. China buys a lot of oil and gas from Iran.
Iranian position stays firm. Even before the IAEA vote to report Iran to the Security Council, Tehran had said it was resuming its research, which it insists it has every right to do. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection. After the IAEA vote, Iran said it would also resume uranium enrichment and would end snap inspections by the UN watchdog.
The West is worried. Western powers fear Iran secretly wants to develop either a nuclear bomb or the ability to make one, even if it has not decided to build one right now. So they want Iran to stop any enrichment. The same technology used for producing fuel for nuclear power can be used for producing fuel for a nuclear explosion. The West says that Iran cannot be trusted. An admission by Iran recently that it had received a black-market document on the construction of a nuclear device from the Pakistani scientist AQ Khan has increased those concerns. Iran says it was given the document unasked.
The current crisis dates back to 2003 when the IAEA reported that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment program for 18 years. Western members of the IAEA called on Iran to commit itself to stopping all enrichment activities permanently, but it has refused to do so and now says it has abandoned a temporary ban as well. So these countries want Iran reported to the Security Council under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on the grounds that its past behavior broke the treaty and it cannot now be trusted. Iran says it is now in compliance with the treaty and that it should be allowed, under inspection, to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes since the treaty allows countries to do this.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad emphasized to the UN that his country had an inalienable right to produce nuclear energy like any other signatory to the NPT. Iran says its policy is yes to enrichment but no to nuclear weapons. A fatwa against nuclear weapons has been issued by the Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The sceptics argue that Iran has no need to make its own nuclear fuel as this can be provided by others, so they conclude that Iran must be intending one day to make a bomb. One other possibility is that Iran wants to develop the capability but has left a decision on whether actually to build a nuclear weapon for the future.
It looks pretty likely now that Iran will soon become a nuclear power, in spite of the best efforts of the West. So what happens now? Let's have a look at some of the questions that arise.
Why is Iran doing all this? After years of political and economic stagnation, it is experiencing a phase of intense national pride. Its economy is thriving. Since the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Iran has become the most important power in the Gulf. And so, in a continent where Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and China all have a nuclear capacity, Iran sees that as a matter of status. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the fundamentalist ex-mayor of Tehran who was the surprise winner in last June's presidential election, is a populist. He knows how to stir up the vast masses of working-class people who support him, by promising a better sharing out of Iran's wealth. They adore it when he defies the great powers which Iranians traditionally believe have deliberately blighted Iran's prospects. Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear energy if it wants, he asks, and (though he never quite says so) nuclear weapons too? Large numbers of Iranians of all opinions and classes agree.
Why does not America just step in and stop it happening? Because it cannot. Iran is far too large and determined for US troops to invade; and if they did, Iraq has shown that fighting a guerrilla war is not America's forte. President Bush could bomb Iranian nuclear and military and oil installations, but there would be outrage around the world, and American interests would be seriously damaged. He could arm and support the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq insurgent group, which Saddam Hussein used to fund, and encourage it to blow up targets inside Iran. But that would only strengthen the government in Tehran, and do further damage to America's standing in the world.
Will UN sanctions against Iran be effective? Sanctions rarely damage a country's government, although they often hurt the poor and unprotected. Sometimes they even help the economy, since more things have to be manufactured at home. Twenty-five years of US sanctions have had little effect on Iran, though they made life harder for its oil industry. Since Iran has land borders with openly friendly Iraq and moderately sympathetic Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics, and since Dubai is just a short plane or boat ride away, Iran will survive very well. Oil prices will go up, and the US and Europe may well find that the confrontation with Iran will be expensive.
The final question is how will it all end? Probably with the Americans and Europeans accepting Iran's status as a nuclear power, while trying to tie it up with as many controls as possible. Some compromise may well be found, and Russia will be well-placed to negotiate one. The West's main hope now is that President Ahmadinejad's critics and opponents within the Iranian political system - and there are plenty of conservative mullahs and wealthy merchants who don't like his brand of fiery populism - will work away to weaken him, and force him to accept a compromise. But in the meantime some European governments are already worried that President Bush's advisers will see this crisis as a way of restoring his fortunes in time for the US mid-term elections in November.
It seems to me that The United States is developing the concept of a 'cold war' towards Iran. It would be a third way between trying to engage with the hard-line government there and attacking its nuclear facilities with the risk of major conflict. The idea is that regime or policy change could be effected by the Iranian people themselves. However such a cold war might turn into a hot war if Washington decided this approach would not stop Iran from developing the technology needed for a nuclear bomb.
So, the most important question to be asked is: Should Iran be allowed to become a nuclear power? It is unlikely that general trade sanctions will be applied. These might harm Russian and Chinese interests. Another major question is whether all the activity in the council will actually be effective. Sanctions against individuals could be irrelevant, and Iran might simply be made more determined - it has already turned the issue into a patriotic one. If the council is ineffective and Iran does carry on, then the question of a military strike, by the US or Israel, or both, will inevitably rise further up the agenda.
However, the developing diplomatic row over Iran's nuclear ambitions has highlighted the question of consistency in US and Western efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. Close US ally Israel is widely believed to have an advanced nuclear arsenal which rarely, if ever, draws any criticism from Washington. India is quite open about its nuclear weapons program, but this has not stopped the Americans from proposing an ambitious program of civil nuclear co-operation with the Indians. So has strategic interest trumped consistency in the non-proliferation field? Iran has frequently charged that it is being treated unfairly. It insists that its nuclear ambitions are solely for peaceful purposes. Iranian experts say other countries have fully-fledged nuclear weapons programs, but they do not incur Washington's wrath.
So what of Iran's claim of there being double-standards, especially in Washington? There is little doubt that both India and Israel have a nuclear weapons capability. Both though maintain close ties with the Americans. Israel has a very close military relationship with Washington and the Bush administration seems to have thrown initial reservations about India's nuclear program to one side and is now eager to step-up nuclear co-operation, at least in the civil field.
So what price consistency? In stark diplomatic terms Israel and India are in a different category to Iran. Neither India nor Israel, nor Pakistan for that matter - which is also thought to have a small nuclear arsenal - have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Thus they are not breaking their treaty obligations in pursuing a nuclear weapons program. However, Iran has signed the Treaty and is bound by it.
One of the great concerns is that Iran could follow North Korea's route, accepting the constraints of the Non-Proliferation Treaty for now - and then breaking out once its nuclear program is sufficiently mature. However, North Korea shows some of the limitations of diplomacy in tackling such thorny non-proliferation issues. But military options to halt its nuclear program are almost unthinkable - just as with Iran. The onus remains on the diplomats to find a way through this complex crisis which involves energy policy, security issues and basic nationalism.
Iran has been far from forthcoming about much of its past nuclear history - and that is one reason why there is so much concern. But diplomacy is not just about observing treaties; it is about sending the right signals. And many US arms control experts see the Bush administration's plans for civil nuclear co-operation with India as driving a coach and horses through the broader non-proliferation regime. Viewed from Washington, consistency is not so much the issue as interests. Israel and India are key strategic allies of the United States. They are democracies. Their arsenals are not seen as destabilizing - in fact, it is quite the opposite. And Iran, at least for the Americans, falls into a very different category. As Senator John McCain said recently: "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising the military option: that is a nuclear-armed Iran."