For those of a nostalgic disposition, there was something familiar about Tony Blair telling an audience of Americans that he would support them in their struggle. For those who care about security on this planet, the former prime minister's latest Manichaean moment was chilling. The rhetoric is, again, being ratcheted up; flimsy intelligence portrayed as more convincing than it is; weapons inspection disparaged. Meanwhile, talks about military logistics proceed in secret.

This time the enemy is Iran. As before, the reasons for war are various and flexible - nuclear proliferation for some, aiding and abetting anti-American forces in Iraq for others, generally being an unpleasant bunch of "towelheads" for the rest.

One might have thought that with Blair gone and Bush on his way out, the situation had changed. In many ways the reverse is the case. Europe is no longer split. The Germans and, notably, the French are vying to be the Americans' best friend. Bernard Kouchner, France's new foreign minister, one of a tiny group of public figures there who backed the Iraq invasion, declares that one should expect the worst and says: "The worst is war." This shift matters because, since Iraq, the US has allowed the EU big three - France, Germany and the UK - to lead talks with Iran on its nuclear ambitions.

In Washington, Bush's star may be on the wane, but he is still surrounded by an extremist cabal led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, who, it seems, would wish for nothing more as a last hurrah in office than an attack on Iran. While many in Congress are urging caution, those voices are likely to grow quieter the closer conflict becomes: the Democrat hopefuls, most of all the favourite, Hillary Clinton, would not want to go into the final year of a presidential race vulnerable to the charge of being soft on defence, particularly if air strikes are portrayed as protecting US troops in Iraq.

The irony appears lost on the White House that Iran's emergence as a regional power in the past few years is largely due to that war. The new puppet government in Baghdad is no match for Tehran in the way - for all his evils - Saddam Hussein was. Several of the more powerful Shia militias now running Iraq are loyal to Iran. The Americans are loath to admit it, but they have been doing business with them.

The chief beneficiary of the Iraq War has been Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He would have struggled to win the 2005 presidential election if voters had not seen their country as increasingly encircled. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find Iranians of any political persuasion, at home or in exile, who do not see their country's nuclear ambitions as a badge of honour. Any attack would only enhance the status of Ahmadinejad, just as criticism grows of his handling of the economy and other issues.

When Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says that an attack on Iran would be "absolutely counterproductive and . . . catastrophic" his voice should be heard. ElBaradei is due to report on Iran shortly. Already, however, his views are being dismissed - a repeat of the treatment meted out to Hans Blix, then head of UN inspectors in Iraq, in 2002/2003.

ElBaradei's most recent estimate is that Iran needs three to eight years to produce a nuclear weapon. Engagement can still work. North Korea provides a useful, if inexact, example of the merits of multilateral negotiation. The US can do diplomacy, when it tries, and this is where Britain and the EU come in. On one level, Gordon Brown has brought some helpful distance into relations with Bush. And yet it is now reported that, at their Camp David meeting in July, Brown gave the green light for air strikes on Iran, possibly offering support from RAF bases and the British navy patrolling the Gulf.

This remains conjecture. For the moment, Brown restricts himself to warning of economic sanctions. Britain, as it prepares to proliferate by renewing its Trident nuclear arsenal, has no moral or diplomatic mandate to threaten Iran. The only way this impasse will be solved will be through diplomacy.

Brown must know that any form of help, big or small, for a US or Israeli attack on Iran would, at a stroke, destroy him politically, just as Iraq did Blair.

Found: a popular Euro opt-in

When the clocks go back this weekend we may welcome the extra hour in bed, but the darker afternoons will soon overshadow that brief pleasure. Has the time not come, the outside observer may ask, for us to switch to British Summer Time all year round?

The argument against is that such a move would keep the sun's rays from penetrating parts of Scotland until 8am or even 9am. Those not familiar with its charms may quibble that the northern part of the United Kingdom is hardly a byword for clement weather in any case. But let us leave that aside. The Scots now have their own parliament, and nationalist leaders eloquent about their desire for greater independence. Why should they not maintain the present system and operate in a different time zone from England and Wales? The SNP conference currently meeting could seize on this as a worthy symbol of Scottish autonomy and self-reliance.

Continental Europe also turns its clocks back and forth, thus constantly remaining an hour ahead of Britain; so, under this proposal, the rest of the UK would synchronise with its EU partners for the five winter months of the year, and be out of sync for seven. An appropriate reflection, some may feel, of the hot-and-cold relationship Britain has always had with the EU (see this week's supplement).

We would, of course, retain our red lines on this matter, thus reserving our right to opt in or opt out of time zones as we please.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website