THE "IRANIAN KNOT OF CONTRADICTIONS"

The Group of Six stat-es holding talks with Iran on its nuclear programme has announced that it is submitting proposals to the UN Security Council on new sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

"The new draft sanctions against Iran will be on the UN Security Council table in the next few days," the USA's representative to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, said. He said that pressure needed to be stepped up on Tehran because it had not adhered to two Security Council resolutions, binding on all countries. Khalilzad also said that Russia's supply of uranium fuel to the civilian nuclear power station in Bushehr is not a breach of the sanctions regime, but on the contrary shows Iran that it does not need to have its own uranium enrichment technology.

Against Uncle Sam

It is not difficult to predict the voting pattern on Iran at the UN Security Council: although at least two states that have the right of veto - Russia and Iran - will make some concessions, they will still oppose taking really tough action. And they have their reasons.

Just a few days ago Tehran reached agreement with Beijing on developing a major Iranian oil field. This holds the promise of large profits for China, which is not interested in "questions of democracy", and an additional source for its growing energy-hungry economy. As for Moscow, besides purely economic cooperation there is another factor - opposing the spread of Western influence eastwards. "The Iranian knot of contradictions" for Russia and the West long since went beyond the boundaries of sanctions against Tehran. Like it or not, the Russian Federation has practically become an ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran in its fight against Uncle Sam. Washington wants to increase its military presence at Russia's borders, including basing elements of the American anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, which the White House directly links with the Iranian nuclear programme. In the current situation the Kremlin is often acting from a position familiar from the days of the Cold War: the Kremlin automatically considers that whatever is bad for the enemy (i.e. America) is good for Russia.

China takes pretty much the same position. It isn't burdened either by eternal friendship with the USA, the main initiator and organizer of the anti-Iranian campaign. While Russia has been a major winner from the Americans' military campaign in Iraq, which has led to a surge in the price of oil, China, which does not have its own oil and gas fields, is facing a threat to its economy. This was especially evident in autumn 2006 and spring 2007 when the Chinese market almost collapsed itself and would have dragged many others with it. China would not welcome at all the prospect of new, tougher sanctions against Iran, which might well entail conditions under which a resolution of the problem by force was possible.

Will they, won't they

It goes without saying that there is no unity amongst the countries opposed to the Iranian nuclear programme. The democratic West has for a long time been grinding its teeth at the, to put it mildly, unfriendly regime of the mullahs in Iran. While they used occasionally to turn a blind eye to Tehran's actions, now a clear understanding has emerged of the cataclysmic threat posed by the appearance of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the unmanageable and unpredictable Iran. The country makes no secret of its dislike of Western values and has always supported the export of the Islamic state structure to other countries, as once the Soviet Empire of Evil sought to spread its ideas throughout the world.

Although it's no small matter that they now understand the danger, the Western anti-Iranian coalition has only a hazy idea of how to resolve the crisis. 

There can be no doubt that the Christian club that is the European Union and its trans-Atlantic ally would without a twinge of conscience resolve their doubts about Iran in an instant if they were just 50-per-cent certain that a military campaign would be quick and painless for the "civilized world". With what enthusiasm the "civilized world" would then begin to help repair the destruction it had caused, not forgetting to take hold of Iran's oil and gas wealth. However, there is no certainty at all of such an outcome. The example of Iran's less institutionally developed neighbour Iraq, where the US and NATO military machine rolled so powerfully, and as yet so hopelessly, into action, is there for all to see. Not to mention the attempt to curb the situation in Afghanistan, where the West, as the Australian prime minister recently acknowledged, is openly losing the war against the Taleban.

But Iran is not the same as Iraq or Afghanistan. The West, therefore, cannot fail to understand that any attempt to apply its faltering military mechanism there is fraught with the worst possible consequences. Moreover, the use of force against one of the top five oil exporting countries threatens such economic disasters that it will be time to think of saving one's own statehood.

Suffice it to remember that Turkey's two-day (17-18 December), relatively minor, military operation against Kurdish terrorists in the Iraqi border zone led to a three-dollar increase in oil prices on world markets, equivalent to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars for the European economy, and not only the European economy. This gives food for thought.

Monkey with a hand grenade

The situation is clearly very complex. Few doubt that the Tehran regime would not be against acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The presence of the nuclear bomb would resolve many problems for Iran at a time when disagreements with the Middle East are increasing, the standoff with Israel is intensifying and the army of their main enemy - the USA - is standing at the borders and brandishing its weapons. The bomb would at least be insurance against attack, but unfortunately that's not all. The danger is that the unmanageable Tehran regime, which is far from generally accepted civilized morals, could quite well go much further.

It is another question whether Iran is really trying to bring its economy to the qualitative level where it would be possible to create such a high-tec weapon. Has the Iranian regime not realized that it can only take the Indian route, that is, acquire military nuclear technology purely through espionage?

At least the latest American intelligence report, which created quite a stir, that Iran stopped developing a nuclear weapon in 2003 leaves an ambiguous impression. On the one hand, if this really is the case, then either Iran actually gave up on its dream of a nuclear bomb (which is difficult to believe, given the political nature of the Tehran regime), or decided to wait for better times. 

On the other hand the famous CIA report could be the fruit of a conflict between two political camps within the current US authorities. That is, the report was prepared by opponents of Bush's hawks who favour a military strike on Iran. It is now absolutely clear that not even Washington is united in its approach to the problem. Moreover, the almost open conflict between the supporters and opponents of a new military campaign can now be seen. 

Not to mention the positions of individual European states, Russia and China.

At the same time, no-one at all likes the idea of Iran having a nuclear bomb for many different political and psychological reasons. Forgive me the comparison, but this is reminiscent of fear at the sight of a monkey sitting up high in a tree and holding a grenade; you don't know if he is going to throw the grenade, when or at whom.

Officials and analysts in the good half of the world scrupulously calculate the possible ways out of the situation; the knot is made all the worse by the political conflicts between some of the powers involved in the process.

Meanwhile, Iran is calmly pulling its punches, to use boxing terminology. Tehran is in control of the domestic political situation and the Iranian people, despite some domestic conflicts including over ethnic issues, is ready at any time to close ranks to respond to an external military threat, wherever it might come from.

Returning to the forthcoming discussions on Iran at the UN Security Council, I would like to repeat my own opinion that extremely tough decisions will not be taken. But a political document might be produced. How effective will this be? And is it worth stamping papers that every time convince the Tehran regime, which couldn't care less about the papers, that the international community is unable to create an anti-Iranian team, with a legitimate UN mandate, united by common views and approaches?

It seems to me that the Iranian situation will be resolved purely on the basis of subjective factors and events concerning one or other of the interested states. There could be a provocation. However, until absolutely reliable information is presented that Iran is at least very close to possessing a nuclear weapon, the international community will not be able to reach complete, unlimited unity. Although if an Iranian bomb does appear, it will already be too late for radical action. This could lead to lamentable consequences for the states neighbouring Iran at the very least. 

It is very hard to believe at present that the international community could agree on effective, tough economic and political sanctions against Iran. However, this is the only way out of the impasse, which would make it possible to complete the dragged-out Iranian marathon and change the political picture in the country. This would be the only guarantee that the monkey has been caught and can no longer threaten anyone with a grenade.