Momentum builds for more sanctions against Iran

The Bush administration appears to have concluded that sanctions can play a part in modifying a country's actions, especially if they come in the context of a united international community that includes the country's key friends: China in the case of North Korea, China and Russia in the case of Iran.

Yet the case of Iran is complicated by the war in Iraq and the interests both the US and Iran have in Iraq. And analysts are divided on what international talks on Iraq, including both Iranian and American officials, might have on the nuclear issue. Some say the talks, which are set to commence this Saturday, are likely to deflate international pressure on Iran, while others believe progress on Iraq could move Iran toward a more accommodating position on its nuclear program.

The administration may have adopted a diplomacy-with-threats approach to Iran, but some analysts say the strategy confuses US partners and encourages the Iranians to focus on ways to exploit it.

"The Bush administration thinking seems to be that every successive resolution will be stronger and that combining that with the increased pressure of measures like a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, you can pressure Iran into acquiescing," says Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations here.

"On the surface it's not an unintelligent blueprint," he adds, "but it doesn't seem to include an understanding of its impact on the Iranians. They can't comprehend the contradictions." To back up his point, Mr. Takeyh says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been talking about conditions for opening up trade with Tehran, while Treasury officials have been pressing the international community to cut off trade with Iran.

"You have the State Department saying maybe bilateral talks with Iran will occur as part of the international talks just announced on Iraq," he says, "and you have [White House spokesman] Tony Snow saying, 'No way will there be bilateral talks' " on the margins of Saturday's conference.

The first resolution on Iran "had an impact in Tehran," Takeyh agrees, but it yielded "more of a change in tone than a change in substance. They haven't changed their core policy of pursuing uranium enrichment and expanding their influence in the region."

Others agree that the US is demonstrating that it does not have a clear policy on Iran. Mr. Tanter, who is also founder of the Iran Policy Committee, a group in Washington that promotes regime change in Iran through action by Iranian dissidents, says the "two-pronged approach" should not be confused with a clear policy.

"The strategy is pretty clear, but the policy is vague," he says. "Is regime change on the table? The State Department says it's not, but the vice president [Dick Cheney] in so many words is saying it is."

The departure of hard-liner John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations, and the arrival in New York of President Bush's nominee, current US Ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad, will "move regime change further off the table," Tanter says.

Meanwhile, in Vienna Monday, where the International Atomic Energy Agency was meeting, a 35-nation board of governors was expected to approve cuts to 22 of 55 IAEA technical-aid projects in Iran. That would follow the agency's review of Iran's compliance with the first resolution.

• Material from Reuters was used in this report.

Page: 1 | 2