WMD in Iraq and Iran

Spotting the differences

Anyone following the gathering drama over Iran's nuclear ambitions could be forgiven for blinking at the strange sensation that we have been here before. The US accuses a problematic Middle Eastern country, an alleged supporter of terrorism and oppressor of its own people, of secretly developing weapons of mass destruction. Israel, which certainly has nuclear weapons, agrees, and hints at military action. Worried Europeans, meanwhile, urge a peaceful resolution of the crisis and try to engage by waving carrots, not sticks. And just as the rogue state does the right thing and strikes a deal with the EU, US intelligence reveals alarming new findings that are quickly discredited as emanating from an uncertain or even dodgy source.

So far, so worryingly familiar. But there are significant differences between Iran today and Iraq in the run-up to last year's war - and crucially, and thankfully - between international responses. First of all, Iran is right to have finally met the demand of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, in suspending uranium enrichment yesterday. That means it will not now be referred to the UN security council and face possible sanctions later this week, as the US had hoped would happen. Uranium enrichment does not automatically lead to weapons, but it is disingenuous of Tehran to behave as if it were above suspicion. It has the second largest oil and gas reserves in the Middle East and does not need the civil nuclear energy it says it wants. In addition, the IAEA has already monitored years of infractions - though it has found no "smoking gun" - and some Iranians have made no secret of their wish to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran already has long-range ballistic missiles while, in its immediate vicinity, Russia and Pakistan both have the bomb, as does Israel, while Turkey is a Nato stalwart. Why should Iran not also have nuclear weapons? Because the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), to which it is a signatory, says it may not. The fact that India, Pakistan and Israel, outside the NPT, have them - while North Korea has withdrawn from it - does not mean that anyone else should join the proliferators and make the region even more dangerous.

Like Iraq and North Korea, Iran is part of George Bush's "axis of evil", hardly surprising taken America's obsession with the country since Khomeini's lslamic revolution overthrew the shah in 1979. It supports radical Islamist groups in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon. But it is pragmatic over Iraq and Afghanistan. Conservative clerics control the parliament, having rigged the last election, though reformists are still an influential force and there is a gradual process of change. Earlier this year a study by the influential US Council for Foreign Relations concluded that Iranian hardliners would not surrender their nuclear card because of the prospect of UN sanctions and would welcome isolation and crisis as a way of rekindling dormant revolutionary fires and deflecting attention from the glaring domestic deficiencies of Islamic rule.

Similarly, the EU view is that "conditional engagement" with Iran, promising trade, investment and political dialogue, is likely to be far more productive than threats of regime change and war. In addition, goes the argument in London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels, the US neocons who pushed to invade Iraq are not in a position to do the same to Iran. America's overstretch, then, is Europe's opportunity. And Britain, this time, is working with the old continent, not the new. That does not guarantee success, but it is another very big difference. Tony Blair thus has a real opportunity to act as bridgebuilder - restraining the hawks in Washington while ensuring that Europe does not collapse into disarray in the face of this explosive global problem.

Today's best video

Today in pictures