DANGEROUS GAME

The military conflict which broke out at the end of summer between Russia and Georgia overshadowed briefly the permanent source of international tension and concern, Iran, which, despite appeals and demands from the United Nations, has refused to halt its nuclear programme. One might have expected that Moscow, resentful of the condemnation of its actions by the West, would veto any new resolutions regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) at the Security Council. But this has not been the case.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, sent an official report to the United Nations in which it stated that the investigation of suspicious activities within the framework of the IRI nuclear programme had reached impasse because of Tehran's refusal to cooperate. And this is quite serious. As IAEA General Director Al Baradei said in his interview with the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Iran could easily convert its civilian nuclear programme into a military one, at any moment.

The specifics of Iran's nuclear programme clearly indicate its military profile. For example, the large-scale uranium enrichment process, which Tehran has organized despite the fact that the IRI has only a small amount of uranium-containing ores - insufficient for industrial purposes - raises questions. For now, Tehran has neither the research nor technological potential to build a nuclear power station, and it is unlikely to acquire them in the next few decades. And experience shows that any imported nuclear reactor is successful only if it uses fuel from the supplier country. The fact that Tehran has accelerated the development of its arsenal of medium and long-range missiles, with the range of 2,000 to 6,000 kilometres, also causes concern. These missiles would be useless without nuclear warheads, because they are not very accurate, and attacking area targets with conventional warheads is absurd from a military point of view.

IRI President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN General Assembly did not give cause for optimism either. The Iranian leader said that the "nation of Iran is open to dialogue," but "has never accepted illegal demands and will never accept them." "The great Iranian people, armed with its belief in the Almighty, resolution, firmness and support from its friends (it is interesting whom exactly he meant -- author), will never yield to attempts to intimidate it and, as before, will safeguard its rights," proclaimed the Iranian leader.

Ahmadinejad also made an opportunistic attempt to take advantage of the differences between the West and Russia over Georgia. He said in his speech: "Lives, property and the rights of people in Georgia, Ossetia and Abkhazia fell victim to the aspirations and acts of provocation of NATO and individual Western states, military agreements and secret actions by Zionists."

However, the Iranian president's speech was not very successful. It turns out that Russia has no intention of promoting propagandistic eloquence above such a fundamental component of international security and stability as the maintenance of the nuclear non-proliferation regime (as we know, Tehran is in no hurry to recognise the independence of  South Ossetia and Abkhazia). Moscow simply deems it inexpedient at this stage to support new sanctions, but it reaffirmed its readiness to support US and EU efforts to abide by decisions which have already been reached.

Thus far, the UN Security Council has introduced three packages of sanctions against Iran - in December 2006, March 2007 and March 2008 - which restricted considerably the country's international financial and economic activity and imposed travel limits on both the country's leaders and the specialists in charge of its nuclear programme. All this affects the economic and financial situation of the IRI. Even the high price of fossil fuels could not avert the effect of sanctions in Iran. Nonetheless, Tehran continues to persevere and refuses to suspend its nuclear projects.

To dispel any illusions of discord among the ranks of the so-called sextet of mediators (the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China) which formulates demands regarding the Iranian nuclear programme in a coordinated manner, Russia proposed a draft resolution to the UN Security Council on this issue, on 27 September. The document, which attracted unanimous support, did not envisage new sanctions - members of the UN Security Council have only confirmed their adherence to the "decisions reached in the negotiating process on the Iranian nuclear programme" and welcomed "continued efforts in this direction." They urged Iran to implement "fully and without delay" the provisions of all the resolutions on the nuclear programme and act upon the demands of the IAEA.

The softened nature of the new UN Security Council resolution on Iran may be viewed as a diplomatic victory for Russia too, but it can also be seen as a victory for common sense and a responsible approach. In the words of US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice, the main goal of the new resolution is to demonstrate the unity of the international community in the face of the Iranian nuclear threat. "Iran must know that the sextet has a common, consolidated opinion," she stressed.

The Iran problem is constantly in Washington's focus. But although five aircraft carrier groups are deployed near Iranian borders by the United States and its allies, a military attack on the nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran seems unlikely at present. The Bush administration is to be replaced soon; its standing is at a record low. In addition, a major financial crisis is under way, with stock markets falling in New York and elsewhere in the world. Republican politicians are unlikely to gamble on an adventure in Iran against a backdrop of incomplete missions in Iraq and Afghanistan; especially as opinion polls show that their candidate John McCain is trailing Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Although both presidential candidates favour active steps to prevent Iran from developing its military nuclear potential, there are some differences in tactics. Obama, for example, views a diplomatic solution to the Iranian problem as the only option, saying that it is possible to reach an agreement at the negotiating table with even a sworn enemy. In his opinion, talks should be held, not with President Ahmadinejad, but with the religious leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the country's supreme authority. McCain, however, said during a televised debate with his opponent that economic sanctions should be tightened to increase the effectiveness of pressure on the Iranian Government. In his view, nuclear weapons in Iran's hands will create a very dangerous situation in the Near East and pose a threat to the existence of Israel.

In the mean time, the Iranian leadership, continuing its risky hard-line policy, viewed the August Russian-Georgian conflict as an opportunity to play for time to advance its nuclear programme as far as possible. Iran voiced its support for its geopolitical ally, Russia. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did this on 28 August, at the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, to which he was invited as an observer. He resorted to his usual anti-Western antics there, pointing to the "role of foreigners in bringing about this conflict." His speech at the UN General Assembly session was in the same vein. But the IRI Foreign Ministry, as personified by the department's secretary of state, took a moderate position on the issue of recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

So, the idea that Russia's conflict with the West over Georgia would encourage Moscow to provide more support for Iran does not seem to work. The allegation by the Israeli newspaper Israel HaYom, that the modern S-300 air defence system would be supplied to Iran and Syria, was categorically denied by Moscow. And reports on the possibility of deployment of Russian military bases in Azerbaijan near the north-western border of Iran, and on the isle of Keshm in the Persian Gulf, in case of attack by the United States and Israel seem completely unrealistic. In reality, Russia originated the unanimously agreed UN Security Council resolution which calls upon Iran to meet the demands of the IAEA.

All this forces Iran to resort to diplomatic manoeuvring and to combine its hard-line policy with a pretence of readiness to accept mutual compromise. The conflicting signals emerging from the Iranian leadership confirm this. For example, during a recent press conference in Brussels, Iranian envoy to IAEA, Ali Asgara Soltani, said that Tehran is ready to discuss the possibility of suspending its uranium enrichment project if the international community guarantees supplies of nuclear fuel to Iranian nuclear power stations. In his words, this might be the first step towards regulation of the crisis, after which there will be a need to "check how the agreement on fuel supply is implemented." However, at the same time Musa Gorabi, a representative of the conservative majority in the Iranian Parliament, made a statement indicating that Iran's position would harden. In particular, he noted: "The latest report by the IAEA General Director, Muhammed al Baradei, and the UN Security Council resolution show that the West has no good intentions towards Iran. We generously granted the IAEA broad access to the facilities of our nuclear infrastructure, but we will soon revise that decision."

Incidentally, the latest IAEA report directly contradicts this view, "the agency, unfortunately, was unable to achieve any significant progress regarding the planned research and other related key issues which still cause us serious concern." As for Soltani's proposal, this compromise was proposed back in 2006 by the sextet and again in 2008 by the European Commissioner for Foreign and Security Policy, Xavier Solana. However, back then Tehran did not respond.

In the opinion of most observers, the Iranian leadership is continuing to play a political game with the international community and has no real intention of limiting its nuclear programme for now. Tehran awaits the results of the presidential election in the United States and makes no secret of the fact that it hopes for victory for Democratic candidate Barack Obama, with whom it hopes to achieve an agreement more favourable to itself. So, the conflicting signals from Tehran are probably intended to win more time for the Iranian leadership, although they may also signify a struggle within the ruling elite between groups with different views on compromise on the nuclear programme.

What is clear, however, is that the problem of the Iranian nuclear programme has reached a line beyond which a solution can no longer be delayed. A mutually acceptable compromise is very important for Azerbaijan because all other scenarios are very risky and bode unpredictable consequences for both the region and the world.