A deal won't stop Iran's bomb plans

Con Coughlin:

With less than a week to go before Iran delivers its formal answer to the West's offer of a peace deal over its nuclear programme, it is tempting to think that the diplomatic net is finally closing on Tehran. That is certainly the impression given by the suggestion that Russian President Dmitri Medvedev is prepared to support a further round of sanctions, which would most likely target Iran's oil and gas industries.

As one of the country's main trading partners, the Russians, given their geographical proximity to the Iranian border, have the ability to undermine the West's attempts to pressurise Tehran. In fact, they have done so repeatedly since the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions surfaced six years ago: they sold Iran sophisticated military equipment to protect it against any possible attack from the West – such as the S-300 anti-missile system – and also helped build the controversial Bushehr nuclear reactor in the Gulf.

But following Mr Medvedev's meeting with President Barack Obama at the UN General Assembly in New York, the Russian leader hinted heavily that Moscow might be prepared to drop its opposition to further measures, remarking: "Sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases sanctions are inevitable."

While this falls well short of an unequivocal commitment, it has been seized on by Mr Obama's supporters as evidence that his policy of resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis by peaceful means is paying dividends.

Iran has until next Thursday to respond to an offer tabled by the E3+3 countries – Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China – of a deal over its illicit nuclear programme. If, as is widely anticipated, the response is inadequate, the fact that the Russians are prepared to support stronger sanctions would immeasurably strengthen the negotiators' position. Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has talked of imposing "crippling" sanctions if Iran continues its defiance. These could range from tightening pressure on its currency to a ban on refined petroleum exports.

With only China, which also enjoys lucrative trade ties with Tehran, declining to reveal its hand, the message even appears to be getting through to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, that time is no longer on Iran's side.

...

Even so, Moscow continued its support for Tehran, because Mr Putin took the view that anything that caused Washington discomfort was worth pursuing, even if it jeopardised Russia's own interests. And while Mr Medvedev gives a good impression of being in charge of his own country, there are few in Russia who doubt that Mr Putin, who is now prime minister, and his merry band of oligarchs remain the real power in the land. It was Mr Putin who was behind the recent attempt to ship arms to Iran in a vessel that was subsequently hijacked by pirates. And it was Mr Putin who dispatched planeloads of security experts to Tehran this summer to help Mr Ahmadinejad suppress the post-election anti-government demonstrations. If Mr Putin wants to maintain his support for Tehran, I doubt there is much Mr Medvedev can do about it.

There are similar questions about the extent of Mr Ahmadinejad's authority, even if he does decide to co-operate with the US-led talks in New York next week. Although he won a second term in office in those bitterly contested elections, Mr Ahmadinejad is under no illusion that he survives only because he continues to enjoy the patronage of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader.

According to a secret document leaked recently by officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Mr Khamenei has been a staunch supporter of Iran's quest for nuclear weapons since 1984, when he is said to have told senior officials that a "nuclear arsenal would serve Iran as a deterrent in the hands of God's soldiers".

...

I think the only thing that will stop Iran is the use of force and I don't think Obama has the will to do so even if Iran threatens US interests. While an Israeli attack could trigger a US confrontation with Iran, it is not clear that Obama would vigorously respond to Iranian attacks.