Why we must not take the pressure off Iran
By David Miliband
December 5, 2007 
The Financial Times
Original Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/443ec2a0-a357-11dc-b229-0000779fd2ac.html
There are three key elements to a nuclear weapon – the fissile material, the missile itself and the process of weaponising the fissile material for the missile. The US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear programme published this week suggests that Iran has put work on the last of these elements on hold. If so, good. But Iran is still pursuing the other two elements, in particular an enrichment programme that has no apparent civilian application, but which could produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon, despite demands to stop from the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. 
Iran’s leaders portray this as a conflict with the international community who wish to deny Iran’s people their rights. This is wrong. We are not trying to stop Iran enjoying the benefits of nuclear power – we have offered assistance to develop their civil nuclear power industry. Iran’s pursuit of proliferation-sensitive activities, particularly its enrichment programme, is what concerns us. It has no need of it. Russia has guaranteed fuel for Bushehr, Iran’s only planned nuclear power plant, and the EU3 plus three (UK, France, Germany, US, Russia, China) have guaranteed future supplies of nuclear fuel.
The trust of the international community is further undermined because Iran hid aspects of its programme for nearly two decades and IAEA inspectors still cannot get the access they seek. Iran also dealt secretly with AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. There will remain a lack of trust until Iran resolves issues about past activities and suspends its enrichment programme.
In September, the EU3 plus three foreign ministers agreed that if discussions between Iran and the IAEA, and with Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, did not show a positive outcome by November we would press for further Security Council action. We now have their reports. The IAEA once again urges Iran to suspend all enrichment activities, adding that “the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current nuclear programme is diminishing”. Dr Solana said his discussions with Iran had been “disappointing”.
The Security Council has passed three resolutions demanding Iran comply with international rules. Two included sanctions against Iran for failing to do so. We will now press for a further sanctions resolution. We cannot be afraid of diplomacy with teeth. The alternatives are all worse. 
We are not seeking confrontation. Since 2002, the international community has striven to resolve our differences with Iran diplomatically. We have offered economic and political co-operation, including assistance for a civil nuclear programme as well as political and economic benefits. Iran’s government has repeatedly rejected these offers. At the same time, they have provided assistance to insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The government is also betraying its own people by failing to respect human rights and political freedoms. 
Why does Iran’s leadership choose confrontation and reject partnership with the international community? That is a question for them. But if it rests on a perception that our aims are hostile, then I want all Iranians to know this is wrong. Our objective is a change in policy, not regime. No one but the Iranian people has the right to choose Iran’s government. We want Iran to be secure and prosperous, co-operating with and respected by the international community. We want Iran to exercise influence and leadership in the Middle East commensurate with its strategic position and historical role in the region. But Iran needs to see the resolve and unity of the international community. No country can afford to be sanguine about defiance of the authority of the multilateral system or destabilisation of the Middle East. That is why we are working for a third Security Council resolution and tougher EU sanctions.
Iran has the potential to be one of the world’s great nations. It enjoys enormous advantages. Its people should be reaping the benefit of these to the full, not seeing their country treated as an international exile. There is a clear choice facing the Iranian leadership. On the one hand, a transformed relationship with the international community, including the US, bringing political, economic and technological benefits. On the other, further isolation. No one can make this choice for Iran’s leaders. But I hope they have the foresight and inspiration to make the right one for their people, who deserve no less.
The writer is UK foreign secretary