There is still time

Last Saturday, the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency met to decide what needed to be done about Iran's civilian nuclear programme.

The vote has enabled a possible reference to be made to the Security Council and the General Assembly of the UN. In plain language, the IAEA resolution implies that the IAEA is not 100 per cent sure that Iran is not making a nuclear bomb.

If matters are not resolved through discussions, and in the unlikely event of Russia and/or China not exercising their veto, the Security Council could order punitive action, which may mean crippling sanctions. India too voted""against Iran.

This has upset some people who see American pressure""which must be a fact, given the evidence at hand. But has India really done the wrong thing?

The answer depends on how national interest is defined. On the one hand, there is the whole set of quasi-moral issues that the Left raises whenever the US is involved (quite forgetting that it was taking money from the KGB).

On the other, there is the long-term issue of India's energy security, which may improve by siding with the US. The nuclear deal agreed upon in July holds one key to that. The bottom line of that deal is straightforward: India will separate its civilian and military nuclear programmes and generally behave itself on the latter while supporting the US in its efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Iran was always recognised as the test case. In return for good behaviour, it will get nuclear power plants and technology from the West. The main question then is: in foreign policy, should governments be "pragmatic" or stick to the Left's notion of political morality, even if it means injuring the country? The answer is clear even if it makes you squirm.

That said, the US seems to have scored a diplomatic victory by hectoring everyone on the issue and bringing it to a boil. The question is, what next? Although it has acquired nuclear technology surreptitiously from Pakistan, the fact is that Iran is entitled under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop the full fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment, treatment of spent rods and so on.

This is why Iran insists that it is only exercising its rights under the NPT. The critics point to Iran's record as a "bad boy" in the region (supporting the Hizbollah, for instance), and argue that the secrecy of its past actions gives the game away with regard to its real intentions.

Perhaps, but the IAEA itself has noted that "good progress has been made in Iran's correction of the breaches and in the Agency's ability to confirm certain aspects of Iran's current declarations." The key reason for the breakdown of the negotiations with European powers is that Iran's European interlocutors did not offer Iran enough by way of guaranteed nuclear supplies (guarantees that would stand in the face of American displeasure) in return for giving up the enrichment plant and other facilities.

The issue can still be resolved through discussion, if Iran recognises that (as the Prime Minister suggested) it has to be flexible; indeed, everyone must hope that flexibility will be shown on both sides. No one really wants another major confrontation in West Asia.