"OUR TRAIN IS AT FULL STEAM, AND ONLY A BOMB WILL STOP IT…"

It seems that we have already seen this before. IAEA chief Muhammad Al-Baradei and EU foreign policy commissioner Javier Solana are expected to deliver new reports again. The UN Security Council will discuss Iran's "nuclear dossier" again, and the discussions will probably be followed by another resolution on "fresh" and tougher sanctions against Tehran. Then the Islamic Republic will continue to ignore the appeals of the international community. The deadline for the last resolution expired on 23 May, but Iran has yet to meet its requirements. Addressing residents of Birjand in the province of South Khorasan on 7 November, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad said that his country does not attach any importance to UN Security Council resolutions based on "false reports". "The Iranian people will never give up its rights, especially in the nuclear sphere, and does not care about any sanctions or threats… Those who are putting pressure on us are making a mistake, for the Iranian people has chosen its path and will follow it with credit," the Iranian president said.

The world press will, of course, publish sensational reports again saying that the United States has drawn up a detailed plan of a military operation against Iran and now it is only a matter of time. In turn, various independent experts will be happy to "delve" into details of each party's chances and the possible outcome of a new war in the Persian Gulf.

The crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear programme cannot last forever. The stakes in this game are not just increasing all the time, but are also getting "more and more" entangled in other problems of the explosive Middle Eastern region. So what sort of changes can we expect in the near future? It is impossible to give a clear answer to this question.

It is enough to look at various predictions regarding Iran in the world press at least beginning from this summer in order to understand how easy it is to make a mistake here. However, it is possible to outline certain tendencies here as well.

So Mahmud Ahmadinezhad's speech in the province of South Khorasan can be regarded as a starting point here. Among other things, the Iranian president also said that Tehran has begun a new stage in its national nuclear programme, having created 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges. "The Iranian people has started industrial production of nuclear fuel. The locomotive of Iranian progress is at full steam, and it cannot be stopped," Ahmadinezhad announced. Experts believe that if the Iranian president really told the truth, the Islamic Republic is likely to get 90 per cent enriched weapons-grade uranium, which will allow the country to create two atomic bombs in less than a year. At the same time, a number of experts say that Ahmadinezhad has repeatedly said that his country has a sufficient number of centrifuges to enrich uranium. He made such statements in September and October. Iran had more than 3,000 centrifuges at the time. Ahmadinezhad's words differ from the 19 August IAEA report which says that the Islamic Republic of Iran has 1,968 operating centrifuges, and the remaining 656 are being either tested or assembled.

Thus, it turns out that there is almost no reliable information regarding the progress of Iran's nuclear programme. This is especially alarming amid growing distrust in IAEA inspections in Iran. Of course, you would not envy this organization as it is under constant pressure from different sides, but you cannot question the facts either. As far as we remember, IAEA chief Al-Baradei said earlier that August 2007 will become a "point of no return" for Iran's nuclear programme. His words in a recent interview with CNN sounded even more interesting: "I have no information as to whether Iran is developing any specific programme on nuclear weapons." According to Al-Baradei, even if this work starts, Iran will need many years to develop weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, the IAEA chief stressed that the growing tensions regarding Iran's nuclear programme might have irreversible consequences, which is why it is necessary to "continue active diplomatic efforts". Of course, such a conclusion causes a wave of protests from Western powers.

French Defence Minister Herve Morin said that his country has information denying Al-Baradei's statement. He added that France is in favour of toughening sanctions against Iran even if this step causes economic damage to France itself. In turn, the spokesman for the US State Department, Sean McCormack, said that the IAEA chief can say "anything he likes". "We welcome the work of the IAEA, but diplomatic efforts with regard to Iran and its nuclear programme should be stepped up by the international community," McCormack stressed. White House official Dana Perino spoke even more clearly on this issue: "Iran is engaged in uranium enrichment with the sole purpose of creating nuclear weapons."

However, as was expected, Israel's reaction to Al-Baradei's statement was even harsher. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said that "instead of supporting the struggle against Iran's nuclear programme, the IAEA is operating as a destructive element and justifying the countries that give up this struggle". Israeli experts suppose that Al-Baradei is afraid to criticize Iran as no weapons of mass destruction were found following the war in Iraq, of which he had warned the White House. As a result, such "spinelessness" can give Tehran more time to implement its plans. For this reason, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who oversees issues related to Iran's nuclear programme, described "Al-Baradei's ostrich policy" as a threat to peace all over the world. According to the Israeli minister, all this will cause the current IAEA chief to resign soon. It must be noted that Israel's harshly-worded statements are motivated by information from the Israeli intelligence service which is known to be one of the strongest in the world. According to the head of the research department of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (AMAN), Brigadier-General Yossi Beyditz, Iran will develop an atomic bomb by the end of 2009. "Ahmadinezhad's regime has encountered certain domestic problems, but this is not enough to undermine the stability of the incumbent authorities. Conservative circles are getting stronger," the general explained.

It must be remembered that in August the IAEA and Tehran signed an agreement to solve Iran's nuclear programme as Tehran gradually answers every question from the IAEA. Iran promised to answer all questions by the end of this year. In turn, due to continuing negotiations between Iran and the IAEA, the "Six" (five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) postponed till the end of November the introduction of more sanctions against Iran for its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment activity. By that time, Javier Solana and IAEA chief Muhammad Al-Baradei will prepare their reports. Iran and the IAEA have been conducting negotiations on issues related to the history and exploitation of gas cenrifuges for uranium enrichment, which make it possible to enrich uranium to 90 per cent uranium 235 isotopes - a level required for creating a nuclear warhead. The Iranian side pointed out that there will be no fresh talks until IAEA secretary-general Al-Baradei submits his report to the UN Security Council. In turn, the deputy head of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, Vaedi, added that if the IAEA chief agrees that the question of centrifuges is closed, Iran will continue answering the agency's questions, and if not, Tehran sees no point in moving forward.

However, what happens if Al-Baradei really admits in his report that the question of centrifuges is closed and repeats the same words as in his interview with CNN? Judging by reaction from the West and Israel, it is clear that they will not agree with the opinion of the IAEA chief.

Thus, it is clear that it is not so much important now what Muhammad Al-Baradei and Javier Solana will say as what position the UN Security Council members will take in the process of discussing their further action with regard to Iran. During his recent visit to the USA, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that he believes in the effectiveness of sanctions and in the need to toughen them. German Chancellor Angela Merkel also spoke out in favour of toughening the sanctions before her meeting with George Bush. Her opinion is of fundamental importance because if it impossible to reach agreement within the UN Security Council, Washington intends not just to toughen its unilateral sanctions against Tehran, but also call on the EU to consider similar measures.

But if everything is more or less clear with Europe (though it is unlikely that all EU members will have a unanimous opinion on this issue), Russia and China are still the most difficult countries for the supporters of the idea of increasing pressure on Tehran. As long as there is enough time, the West will try to take every opportunity to drum up their support. However, if Moscow makes open statements from time to time, it is absolutely impossible to understand what China thinks about it. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates who visited China in early November seems to have persuaded the Chinese leadership to promise joint efforts against Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons. But how and when? Quite recently, Beijing made it clear to the visiting Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni that it is too early to impose sanctions.

In turn, Moscow seems to be playing its own "game" with Tehran. "Vague suspicions" arose after the resignation of Ali Larijani - the "chief negotiator" on Iran's nuclear programme and secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. After he was replaced by Seyyed Jalili who worked as Iranian deputy foreign minister for America and Europe, many wondered "why". Among other theories, there was an assumption that Larijani's resignation was linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Iran (!). As is known, during this visit which was conveniently timed to coincide with the Caspian summit, the Russian leader had a meeting with Ayatollah Khamene'i behind closed doors. There is an assumption that during his meeting with the ayatollah, the Russian president made proposals that could solve the crisis relating to Iran's nuclear programme. At the same time, according to other sources, "Putin's proposals" were that he threatened to stop supporting Iran if it does soften its position. And Larijani wanted to make this public. However, Mahmud Ahmadinezhad had his own considerations on Putin's visit to Tehran. As is known, the Russian leader's visit was described as no more no less "a great victory of Iranian diplomacy". As we can see, Larijani failed to prevent such a "PR campaign".

Meanwhile, the meeting between the Russian president and Iran's spiritual leader was so interesting to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he immediately "rushed" to Moscow. According to several Israeli newspapers, he made his unexpected decision to see the Kremlin leadership after getting information about a difficult conversation between Putin and Khamene'i. Some time later, Tehran was unexpectedly visited by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Following his talks with Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad, the Russian foreign minister informed the world about Russia's position again: "Unilateral economic sanctions against Iran cannot solve the crisis relating to Iran's nuclear programme." Meanwhile, on 7 November Lavrov's deputy Sergey Kislyak officially denied that Russia had made secret proposals to Tehran. "Russia has not made any secret proposals to Iran," Kislyak stressed, adding that Moscow is in favour of solving all Iranian problems "in a negotiated way". However, who can prove now that Moscow did not make any "sensational proposals" to Tehran or is Moscow saying that there were no proposals because Tehran did not accept them?

At a time when everybody was left in the dark about "Putin's proposals", Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Sa'ud Al-Faysal made a proposal to Iran on behalf of Saudi Aradia and other Arab countries of the Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE) - to set up a uranium enrichment consortium outside the Middle East. Such a proposal was made to Iran last year, but it was rejected. Tehran flatly refuses to move its uranium enrichment factories out of the country. Meanwhile, special attention should be paid to the reasons that prompted the Arab countries to make another proposal to Tehran. The thing is that Arab countries are increasingly concerned that Iran may really create weapons of mass destruction. The British newspaper The Times has said that Bahrain's Sheikh Salman ben Hamad Al-Khalifa has openly accused Tehran of either developing the bomb or creating technical potential for that. The sheikh also expressed his fear that if there is an armed conflict, the "whole region" might drawn into it.

Thus, it is clear that contradictions regarding Iran's nuclear programme will be insoluble as was the case before. In any case, it is worth waiting for the UN Security Council session, because "secret diplomacy", which cannot be "seen and heard" by the media, is not stopping for a single minute.