Can't Stop Them Now

Assuming, for the moment, that the spectre of a nuclear Iran was one that frightened people - what could we do to stop it materialising?

The question would be a timely one. As was half reported yesterday, a diplomatic conference in London has just begun, its ostensible object to agree a means of persuading the Iranians to abandon their nuclear ambitions. It is difficult to see what this conference will achieve; after all, previous efforts to set time limits for Iran to cease enriching uranium have been ignored. Or rather, President Ahmadinejad has consistently announced that uranium enrichment will continue no matter what, while graciously offering to chat about it round any negotiating table at the same time.

Perhaps the conference will go further, and agree a resolution to be put to the UN recommending economic sanctions against Iran unless the IAEA is satisfied that enrichment has completely stopped by, say, 30 April. This itself would represent an unusually assertive step for the international community, so it's difficult to see it happening. The countries conferring this week are the US, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany. China has announced today that anything other than a negotiated settlement will not be countenanced, which appears to rule sanctions out. Russia has taken a similar line at the UN in the past. Both countries have commercial interests in Iran, as does Germany. British public opinion would be dead set against further aggression in the Middle East at a time when the government is languishing in the polls. So the US - which is divided on the subject of Iran itself - would find little support even for sanctions at this stage.

But suppose such a resolution emerged, was approved by the UN security council and was put to Iran. All the signs are that Iran would fail to comply. So sanctions would begin. What a nightmare that would be! The Iraqi experience of the 1990s teaches us just how ineffective sanctions against a ruthless and wealthy country are. The late Saddam Hussein was never short of a gold toilet or two ten years ago, contriving the while to stuff the world's press with vivid propaganda on how UN sanctions were depriving Iraqi children of proper food and medical supplies. Predictably, there followed a howl of outrage directed against the sanctions programme. This culminated in the shameful corruption of the oil-for-food fiasco. The fatal combination of manipulability and unpopularity makes possible sanctions against Iran a truly dismal option.

Which, effectively, leaves military action. If there is no chance of getting agreement on sanctions, however, there is no remotely imaginable shred of hope that the UN would approve the use of force. Once upon a time this might not have mattered so much, but with the US home front increasingly coming to believe the endless reports of undiluted calamity in Iraq, it is unlikely that it would permit unilateral action. Ahmadinejad knows, even if the rest of the world does not, that American credibility is at stake in Iraq at present, and the longer the "insurgency" grinds on in the media spotlight, the more Uncle Sam looks like a busted flush. The real tragedy here is that in the autumn of 2003, when the West was in the ascendant in Iraq and Iran still had something to fear, the Iranians did stop enriching uranium, and admitted IAEA inspectors to their nuclear programme at the same time. Now they know that they are likely to face nothing from the outside world stronger than a form of words.

To answer the original question, it looks as though we cannot prevent a nuclear Iran. Let us hope it does not turn out to be ironic that it is the "anti-war" mob who have made this so.