November 27, 2007	Tuesday	Ziqa’ad 16, 1428

CAIRO: The accusations come almost every day from US officials: Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. Sponsoring terrorism. Killing Americans in Iraq. Intent on Israel’s destruction. Yet, some officials add, its government will collapse if only given a push.

Does the US have solid proof that Iran is guilty of such a long list of misdeeds? Or is the case against Iran — and the certainty of its ill intent — a bit fuzzy? In the buildup to the Iraq war, the Bush administration made allegations against Saddam Hussein that polls show Americans believed, but which later proved wrong.

Now, with US officials leading the pressure on Iran, many Americans are weighing the evidence. Is there a smoking gun or even a smouldering one? In Tehran’s traffic-clogged center, the walled compound down a leafy street is off-limits to ordinary Iranians. It is the nerve center of the country’s supreme leader and hardline president.

No doubt the two are hostile to America. They also crave a nuclear programme, seek influence across the Mideast and send money to Islamic militant groups.

They have never forgiven the US for supporting Iran’s shah, deposed nearly three decades ago. They tolerate only limited democracy under the boot of an Islamic theocracy. And one of them, the president, has attacked Israel in apocalyptic terms.

Indeed, the United States and Iran have been enemies since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a bitter time of black-turbaned mullahs, screaming students, and blindfolded, helpless American hostages.

But both countries have changed. Brushing away the strident ideology and the distrust, what now are Iran’s weapons and its intentions?

For almost two decades, Iran pursued a secret nuclear programme. It came partially to light in 2002, mostly through information from exiles, and has led to UN inspections, sanctions and standoff. Iran insists its programme is for civilian power generation only. The US says it is for a bomb.

Many other countries agree that Iran’s steps so far — especially its enrichment of uranium and its continued secrecy — suggest it seeks the capability to build a weapon. Those more toward compromise, including Russia and China, urge Iran to be more open.

“There’s no consensus that Iran’s leadership has decided to build a nuclear arsenal,” said David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector now at Washington’s Institute for Science and International Security. “There’s more of a consensus that they’ve built a set of capabilities” that could be used for a weapon.

Even if one assumes the goal is a weapon, it is a stretch to leap from that “to the assumption you know what Iran is going to do and when,” said Anthony Cordesman, a Mideast expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.US intelligence estimates are based mostly on the UN nuclear agency’s findings and informed speculation, Cordesman and others say.

President George Bush suggested last month that because Iran’s president is openly hostile to Israel, any Iranian possession of nuclear weapons could cause World War III.

But very little is known about Iran would do with a bomb, if it had one.

While he makes headlines with his rhetoric, Ahmadinejad faces a re-election battle in two years and his popularity is plummeting.

The real power in Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s top religious and political authority whose views remain shrouded in mystery. He has backed Ahmadinejad and is deeply conservative.

But almost all Iranians believe Khamenei is far more pragmatic than the president.

“We have to keep in mind, the supreme leader is not as radical as Ahmadinejad ... he cares for the survival of the country,” said Mehdi Khalaji, a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Khalaji said he believes Khamenei would never order an attack on Israel with a nuclear weapon because the Israeli retaliation could destroy Iran.

That is what retired General John Abizaid, the former US commander for the region, was likely suggesting when he said the West could live with a nuclear Iran.

But with the consequences so high, the point is hotly debated: Why would Iran seek a nuclear weapon if not to use it?

Most countries seek nuclear weapons as a way to gain regional power and influence, a whole host of analysts say. Above all, a nuclear programme means international clout and deterrence against aggressors.

Of course, Khalaji cautions, even if Khamenei is pragmatic, no one knows for sure what Iran’s next supreme leader might be.

But Iran’s clerical regime “has survived everything short of the plague” in its 28 years, said Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington.

And no coherent, organised opposition has ever emerged.

Khalaji is blunt: Ahmadinejad may be unpopular and “very fragile.”

But he says: “The regime is not vulnerable at all.”—AP