Editorial: Dialogue best approach to Iran stand-off

Opinion

Less than a fortnight ago, the White House seemed to open a new chapter in relations with Iran by shelving plans to build a missile-defence shield in eastern Europe. The decision effectively discounted Tehran's ability to develop nuclear warheads for its long-range missiles.

Now, however, the sort of thinking that led President Barack Obama's predecessor to include Iran in his "axis of evil" has been re-ignited. Iran's admission of a second uranium enrichment plant, which could produce material for an atomic bomb or nuclear energy, has been followed by the test-firing of missiles. This show of force almost invites the taking of a hard line against Iran in diplomatic talks in Geneva this week.

Added to that temptation is the much stronger chance of an agreement on harsher sanctions. Russia helped Tehran to build its first nuclear reactor and has championed its cause.

But its stance has changed because of Iran's latest revelations and the dropping of the American missile-defence shield, which it saw as provocative. Only China, among the veto-holding members of the United Nations Security Council, is now potentially averse to more punitive sanctions targeting Iran's banks and its oil and gas industry. Beijing relies heavily on Iranian oil.

However, when diplomats from the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany confront Iran, they would be wise to note the view of Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector. He has warned that any rush to "corner" President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad risks strengthening the hands of hardliners in Iran. "If the approach is going to be about shaming Iran and putting them in a corner and punishing them, I'm not sure that is wise," he said.

Mr Blix said there was a better chance of containing nuclear proliferation in Iran through dialogue and even offering Tehran aid and investment for its civilian nuclear programme in exchange for a suspension of uranium enrichment activities.

That seems a reasoned approach. Any response to Iran must recognise the deep divisions in Iranian society, and President Ahmadinejad's tenuous grip on power. He could benefit if a people already enduring the effects of a sick economy were to suffer further from sanctions.

Whatever Iranians' view of the President, most, like him, want their country to be strong and internationally respected. They have lived under the threat of attack by Israel or the US and can see how a nuclear capability has transformed attitudes towards North Korea. And they wonder why so little is made of Israel's nuclear arsenal, while so much attention is paid to Iran's fledgling programme.

US intelligence believes the Iranian leaders have not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon. But the secret construction of the second enrichment plant near Qom suggests they want to be able to possess one within months if necessary.

There is a need, as Mr Blix suggests, for a "calibrated response". If there is cause to question tougher sanctions, the Geneva meeting should certainly seek a suspension of enrichment and a guarantee of International Atomic Energy Agency access to all the Iranian sites and scientists involved in nuclear development.

Iran's nuclear chief has indicated this will be allowed, but an inspections programme remains to be set.

If this can be agreed, Iran could satisfy the world's powers without the need for potentially counterproductive and probably ineffective sanctions. It has staged the missile tests in an attempt to bolster its status at the negotiating table.

But it has an ever-shrinking number of cards. Now is the opportunity for diplomacy to fashion a change in Iranian policy. It must be seized.