Iran plays for time

Iran's offer on Tuesday to begin immediate "serious talks" over its nuclear programme - but not to agree to United Nations demands to reduce its nuclear activities by the end of the month - has not been particularly welcomed by the main powers involved in this dispute. To me it looks like Iran is simply playing for time and taking advantage of its recently boosted status in the Middle East.

The UN had asked Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, a process that has the potential to produce nuclear weapons, in a deal which was brokered by the European Union. The US, UK, Russia, China, France and Germany offered Iran a package of incentives - including help with civilian nuclear technology - in exchange for suspending its enrichment programme.

The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, described Iran's response as "extensive" which required a "detailed and careful analysis".

However, the EU and the United States had already warned that unless Iran stopped its enrichment programme by the end of August, they would press for sanctions to be imposed by the UN Security Council, even though they were aware of Russia's and China's reluctance to agree to this.

Immediately after Iran's response, the US reiterated that the suspension of research was required before any talks, and France and Britain were of the same opinion.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said fresh talks were dependent on Tehran first suspending its nuclear activities. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tehran had not agreed to suspend its enrichment programme: "We are still checking this, but according to everything I've heard we cannot be satisfied with this. It is not at all what we expected," she said.

China and Russia were more cautious in their response. Beijing said it was "carefully studying" Iran's reply. "China has always believed that seeking a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic talks is the best choice and in the interests of all parties concerned," the Chinese foreign ministry said. Russia stressed its commitment to a negotiated solution to the crisis.

It is very clear that Iran has felt bolstered by recent international events which perhaps explains why it believes it can play for time over its nuclear enrichment programme and not feel threatened by the UN. In the recent conflict in Lebanon, for example, where Hizbollah - which Tehran backs - was the clear victor, Iran's standing was boosted - while the US's reputation in the region suffered considerably, mainly due to its strong support for Israel's attacks on Lebanon.

Furthermore, a report by the UK-based Royal Institute of International Affairs says Iran can afford to continue to be evasive in the dispute over its nuclear programme because of its regional supremacy.

"The US-driven agenda for confronting Iran is severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in the region," the report says.

The report argues that Iran has emerged as the biggest beneficiary of the US-led war on terror in the Middle East. It adds that recent US-led wars have "eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments - the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in April 2003".

According to the think-tank Iran wields more influence than the US in Iraq, and is also "a prominent presence" in Afghanistan. While Iran's influence in Afghanistan is not particularly strong, it is very clear that in the Shi'ite regions of Iraq the main power broker is turning out to be Iran which has armed various Shi'ite militias which in turn are attacking British and American forces.

There are, of course, no easy solutions to this crisis with Iran. It is true that Iran does have legitimate security concerns - and one cannot ignore the country's history, which is littered with Western interference such as the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh in the 1950s.

However, the fact remains that a nuclear-armed Iran is in nobody's interest - it would be a very dangerous development and a grave threat to international peace and stability. I am not sure whether sanctions would produce the desired results - especially if they are aimed at the Iranian people and not the regime, but something certainly has to be done.

To matters worse, there seems to be a lack of intelligence on Iran. A US Congressional report says the US lacks reliable intelligence on Iran's weapons capability, including its possible plans to develop a nuclear bomb.

Given the "significant gaps" in US intelligence, the report questions whether the US can engage in effective dialogue with Iran. "Iran is a serious security threat on which the United States needs better intelligence," it says.

"A special concern is major gaps in our knowledge of Iranian nuclear, biological, and chemical programmes," the report says.

However, the report says, Iran may equally be engaged in a campaign of denial and deception designed to make its nuclear programme appear more advanced than it is.

I don't wish to sound too cynical but this report seems to contain similar echoes of US intelligence failures over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I hope I am wrong.