Iran’s hardline and eccentric new Cabinet does not offer much hope that it will freeze its nuclear programme. In that case, President Obama will be forced to acknowledge that diplomacy has failed and face two unattractive options.
One is “containing” a nuclear-armed Iran, diplomatic jargon for deterrence. The second is bombing its facilities, or endorsing a strike by Israel with the risk of starting a war in which the US could not escape a role. The choice will dominate the United Nations General Assembly in three weeks’ time, the most highly charged summit since the Iraq war.
The good news is that the US is in a stronger position than in seven years of trying to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear work because the violence in Iraq has subsided. Iran is in a weaker position because of the disputed re-election of President Ahmadinejad and the challenge to his legitimacy.
Less encouraging, although hardly surprising, is that Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are not giving an inch. The Cabinet Ahmadinejad has picked is loyal to him, although not distinguished by experience, as the parliament has pointed out. Masoud Mir-Kazemi, the Energy Minister, stands out as a reckless choice, given the complex decisions of how to play the economic recovery and tense relations with Opec. Ahmadinejad’s defiance of international pressure is shown in the choice of Ahmad Vahidi as Defence Minister, wanted by Interpol for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Argentina.
Early this year Obama suggested September as a point when he might take stock of whether Iran had curbed uranium enrichment. Iran says it is only making fuel for power stations but others believe that the 20-year covert programme, exposed in 2002, supports military ambitions and that Iran is within a few years of a weapon.
Advertisement
Before the UN summit US officials are probing the appetite for tighter sanctions. Not much, as ever, from China and Russia, but Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, appalled by the “stolen election”, has suggested that Germany might sacrifice some of its lucrative trade with Iran.
The US has not ruled out an airstrike but Obama’s inclinations and the turmoil in Afghanistan seem to rule that out. An Israeli strike? Always possible, always unattractive. The furore over flight over other countries (Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq) would be so great that missiles would be the easier option, many analysts think. Even so, the US would be slow to back it.
That leaves “containment”, probably the preferred option of the Obama Administration. It means assembling a package of threats and incentives to dissuade Iran from mounting a warhead on a missile, and convincing it that use of the weapon would always be to its great disadvantage.