Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

No easy way to curb Iran's nuclear goals

The day after Europe demands U.N. Security Council intervention, Iran threatens retaliation. Options for restraining Iran are few.

VIENNA - A growing number of countries are backing moves to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions. But with military action all but ruled out and the difficulty of imposing effective sanctions, their tools appear few and flawed.

The main threat for now is referral to the U.N. Security Council. But Iran was defiant Friday, threatening to end surprise inspections and other cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog if it is referred to the Security Council. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity, but the United States and others accuse it of seeking to develop atomic weapons.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed his country won't be intimidated by sanctions.

"Iran is not frightened by threats from any country, and it will continue the path of production of the nuclear energy," state-run radio quoted him as saying. "Iranian people do not allow foreigners to block their progress."

After Iran resumed research work on enrichment this week, Britain, France and Germany issued a tough statement Thursday declaring 21/2 years of tense negotiations with Tehran at a "dead end" and urging the Security Council to intervene.

That stance appeared to be a recognition of the lack of unity among the Security Council's five veto-carrying members, as well as doubts about the effectiveness of economic sanctions, given the world's thirst for oil.

The United States - the key backer of harsh sanctions against Iran - can count on Britain's backing in the Security Council. France, too, may go along out of frustration over trying - and failing - to persuade Tehran to give up uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear arms.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Bush said they discussed Iran at length Friday, during the German leader's first visit to the United States since taking office last November.

They stood together in urging U.N. intervention if Iran does not retreat from a resumption of its nuclear program.

The world needs to "send a common message to Iran that their behavior ... is unacceptable," Bush said.

Iran buys most of its weapons from Moscow and Beijing. Russia has nearly completed work on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor and is the key contractor for Tehran's plans to build more. China is making energy deals with Iran - it owns a 50 percent stake in its Yadavaran oil fields and has contracted for 250-million tons of Iranian liquefied natural gas worth some $70-billion.

Moscow has toughened its tone since Iran resumed uranium conversion on Tuesday. Still, Alexei Malashenko, a researcher with the Carnegie Endowment's Moscow office, dismissed the new stance as a gesture to its Western allies.

"Russia will never give up its cooperation with Tehran," he told the daily Vremya Novostei.

China is considered likely to oppose tough sanctions. On Friday, its U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, questioned the wisdom of referral, saying that "might complicate the issue."

But even if all five agree on the need for sanctions, the question of how to punish Iran is difficult.

"Full economic sanctions almost work too well," said David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear inspector in Iraq who runs the Institute for Science and International Security. "They kill a lot of civilians, and nobody wants that."

Most experts say Iran would be hurt if its energy exports are targeted, since oil and gas sales amount to 69 percent of the country's annual budget.

But in an energy-hungry world, prohibiting the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Country's second-largest producer from doing international business would be a double-edged sword - even a one-day disruption in natural gas deliveries from Russia this month sent the European Union into emergency mode.

"Even for nations that don't directly import from Iran, any disruption in imports affects prices," said Valerie Marcel, energy specialist at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. "And Asia, with its dependence on Iranian energy, would be directly hurt."

Friedemann Mueller of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin warned that pulling the daily 2.7-million barrels of Iranian oil off the market "would set off an enormous price movement."

Military action remains as a last resort.

Israel and the United States, the two nations Iran considers its most implacable enemies and the most likely to resort to such means, have refused to rule out such action. But they say it's not in the cards anytime soon. And their reluctance is understandable.

Iran's nuclear installations are scattered and hidden, and intelligence on them is weak. That would rule out the success of a single devastating airstrike of the kind Israel carried out against Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981.

Only the United States would be capable of carrying out the other combat scenario - a full-scale invasion to topple the regime. But it has its hands full in Iraq.

U.S. military strategists realize that invading Iran - large, rugged, and with forces led by battle-hardened veterans of the 1980-88 war against Iraq - could backfire.

"I think the people would unite behind their leadership - even those critical of the leadership now," said Albright. "They would be willing to live under all kinds of hardship to battle an invader."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told British Broadcasting Corp. radio Friday, "I promise you I've never had a single discussion with anybody in the American administration about even the possibility of military action.

"This can only be resolved by peaceful means. Nobody is talking about invading Iran or taking military action," he added.

[Last modified January 14, 2006, 01:39:15]