Thumbing their nose at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council, the Iranian leadership has refused to suspend uranium enrichment. Instead President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran has managed to enrich uranium up to 20 per cent.
This claim has been dismissed by US officials as fanciful. There are serious doubts about Iran's ability to achieve such high levels of uranium enrichment. It is most likely that Ahmadinejad is upping the ante for his own domestic advantage. However misguided his efforts at brinksmanship, Ahmadinejad has perhaps provided a catalyst for international action.
Most observers accept that Iran is serious about mastering nuclear weapons production. Ahmadinejad recently scoffed that 'we can build atomic bombs if we want to, and there is nothing anyone can do about it'. This may sound like schoolyard taunting, but it has given the international community reason to pause.
Australia cannot afford to be silent on this matter. Australia has a history of commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and has recently formed the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND) co-chaired by Gareth Evans, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Last month Defence Minister John Faulkner invoked the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act to stop the shipment of industrial pipes to Iran because of fears about how they could be used. PM Kevin Rudd applauded this move and warned that Iran is becoming a danger to Australia: 'They are developing a nuclear weapons program which is against the security interests of Australia, against the security interests of our wider region, against the security interests of the world and the international community.'
But what can Australia do to stop nuclear weaponisation in Iran? To date, Australia has not endorsed calls for military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. The general consensus in Canberra seems to be that any military strike would complicate an already messy situation. Iran's alliance with Hizbullah in Lebanon and its stranglehold on the Hormuz Strait, a critical bottleneck for oil shipment out of the Persian Gulf, give Iran a menacing advantage, making any direct attack on Iran fraught with regional implications.
The Iranian authorities have not been reticent in pointing to the cards they hold.
The alternative to military action is harsher economic sanctions. This, however, does not seem to hold much promise either.
The United States has embarked on a diplomatic offensive to garner support for a fourth round of sanctions. On a tour of Arab states last week, the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton chose very harsh words to describe the Islamic regime. This signals a reappraisal of earlier efforts to bring the Iranian authorities to the negotiating table. President Obama's charm offensive on Iran lost its edge following the fraudulent June 2009 election and the repression of the reform movement.
In the first half of 2009, the Iranian authorities did not know how to respond to Obama's messages of good will. But once the US made clear its disapproval of the thuggish behaviour of the authorities against protestors, the familiar dynamic of anti-US hostility was restored. Against the backdrop of growing international concern about Iran's nuclear program and its mistreatment of dissidents, Tehran has reverted to its policy of non-cooperation.
Provided Russia and China come to the party at the UN Security Council, the last option before military action will be to impose a fourth round of sanctions. But given that Iran has been under sanctions for 30 years, it is hard to imagine how a new round could change the resolve of the mullahs. If the Iraq experience is any indication, the regime will simply divert resources from the civil sector to the military and security in an effort to 'ride out the storm', and blame the international community for the inevitable fall in health care and living standards.
The Australian Government is aware of the challenge, but for two important reasons it feels it has no option but to join the international chorus. First, Australia has an ideological commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and Iran is blatantly contravening its NPT obligations. Second, Australia has a strategic alliance with the US and the 'Iran problem' offers an opportunity for the Rudd Government to demonstrate its commitment to its ally.
This is a tricky issue as Kevin Rudd came to office on a wave of anti-war backlash against John Howard and Australia's commitment to the 2003 war in Iraq. At the time, the anti-war campaign and the Labor Party were accused of weakening the alliance with the US. The Labor Government has been at pains to demonstrate its steadfastness in relation to the US and its strategic interests. The 'Iran problem' presents an opportunity to silence those critics and consolidate the US-Australian strategic alliance.
Associate Professor Shahram Akbarzadeh is Deputy Director of the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies, University of Melbourne, and co-author of US Foreign Policy in the Middle East.