NOWITHSTANDING Russia’s economic interests in countries currently the focus of world attention, Vladimir Putin’s statement that America is attempting a regime change in Iran does not appear to be without substance. Moscow had opposed Nato intervention in Libya, and recently, along with Beijing, it vetoed a West-led resolution on Syria. While both Russia and China came under criticism for opposing sanctions against the Assad regime, Mr Putin’s views, aired on Friday while he inspected a Soviet-era nuclear research centre, have a point when seen in the light of American policies towards Iran. The Russian prime minister dwelled on a broad range of American policies, which he claimed Washington was attempting to impose on Moscow, and said he would maintain Russia’s nuclear arsenal to keep US policies in check. But it was on Iran that he was categorical. On the pretext of preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, he said, the US was attempting to effect regime change in Tehran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s high-profile foreign policy and nuclear ambitions have helped Israel whip up anti-Iran hysteria in the US. Even though the Obama administration has not spoken of a military option the way the Bush administration had, its identity of views on Iran with the Likud government is a matter of concern, especially when there is talk of an Israeli attack “this spring”. An Israeli and/or American military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could have two aims: one, destroy Teheran’s nuclear programme; two, discredit and overthrow the clergy-led regime. It is highly unlikely that such an attack would succeed in its mission. Surgical strikes on Iran’s well-guarded sites will at best put the programme back but are unlikely to cripple it, while a failed military attempt will strengthen the Iranian regime, which will be able to mobilise domestic support for its benefit.