Iran has indicated that it is ready to rejoin international diplomatic negotiations, with Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki stating at a weekend press conference that “October or November would be a suitable time.”

However, one of Israel’s leading arms control experts, Dr. Emily Landau of the Institute for National Security Studies, says that the international community’s approach to Iran, and in particular the dual track approach  (diplomacy plus sanctions) favored by the Obama adminsitration, is flawed.

Dr Landau, calling the Iranian nuclear program a ” Virtual Smoking Gun” says that “the time to get serious is yesterday. “ The right question is not the time frame in which Iran could weaponize its nuclear arsenal”, says Dr Landau – speculation as to the pace of the program is not the issue. “All this does is give governments the sense of having more time to waste.”

“There is no doubt”, says Landau that Iran has “enough enriched uranium for 3 or 4 nuclear bombs.” In her assessment they also have real delivery system capability, and periodic displays of longer and longer range missile systems are not just sabre rattling.

The correct questions, Landau says, are should Iran be stopped? Who should take the lead ? and How can they be stopped?

Landau says that the Obama administration’s tactic of trying sincere diplomacy and then imposing sanctions when the talks bore no results, is not effective.  Instead, she advocates using sanctions and serious threats of military action in order to exert real pressure on Iran at the negotiating table. She says the US must take a visibly tougher stance and drive “hard bargains” as Iran simply uses the negotiating process as a stalling tactic to give the impression they are cooperating and to allow them yet more time to develop the program.

Its fair to say that Iran continues to obfuscate any real intentions to take a serious diplomatic route, and tends to use complaints against Israel and the US as a distraction. For example, Tehran’s top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili said on Monday that Tehran is soon to reveal proof of how nuclear material enriched by United States was provided to Israel: “We will soon publish documents on how American enriched nuclear material was provided and transported to the Zionist regime,” Jalili said, quoted on state television’s website.

Iran, which denies international suspicions that it is making nuclear arms, has repeatedly called for Israel to be questioned over its reported nuclear arsenal and to join the non proliferation treaty. Iran uses a similar distraction tactic if the US accuses the regime of human rights abuses, citing in many instances that the US also employs capital punishment.

Landau also argues that the current negotiating format – inviting Iran to join the 5 permanent members of the UN security council – is not effective, as two of the P5, China and Russia – always require a significant watering down of the rounds of sanctions that the UN imposes once talks fail. She also argues that the IAEA is largely ineffective in reigning in Iran’s activities, as any violation of IAEA regulations is referred to the UN security council, leaving again, any action in the ultimate hands of the Permanent 5 members.

On the question of who should take the lead in dealing with Iran, Dr Landau says that this is without question the role of the United States. Again, she says, the administration has made a fundamental mistake by not presenting a clear strategy on Iran from day one.

Obama, she said, seemed more focused on improving US relations with Iran in February 2009. The President, she says, must make a clear choice as to whether he wants to engage with Iran or stop them from developing a nuclear weapon. ” Iran must come to the conclusion that the US is in control. That is not what they see today from the Obama administration.”

On the difficult question of whether any state should take military action against Iran is subject to cyclical media speculation as to Israel or indeed the US taking military action against Iran.

Professor David Menashri, of the Iran studies program at Tel Aviv university, says of the speculations on Israel’s willingness or capability to act alone  ” A reason for such speculations is the sense that no one else will do this, and that ultimately someone (Israel?) will have to do something. ”

Israel’s attack on the nascent Syrian reactor in 2007 is, says Landau, an example of how such an attack can only be effective if carried out early – before the reactor is fully developed or aspects of it concealed. Landau says the problem with Iran is not its visible reactors like Natanz, with its capacity for 54,000 centrifuges that could arguable be used for civilian purposes – but its underground covert facilities, like the named one at Qom which house smaller amounts of centrifuges, (Qom has 3,000) but centrifuges in which higher levels (i.e. weapons grade) of enriched uranium, and Dr Landau suspects, plutonium, can be hidden.

Landau and Menashri both base their analysis on the assumption that the US and Israel have sophisticated, shared intelligence gathering operations targeting Iran’s nuclear activities.
Referring to the recent ‘computer worm’ that sabotaged aspects of Iran’s program, Landau said she did not know, but “assumed” that the US and Israel could have played a role in the sabotage and there could be other efforts of this nature to slow down Iran’s program.

There were also US based media reports a few months ago that Israel had been ‘assuaged’ in some way by US intelligence reports that Iran is a year away from weapons capability. Menashri says  ”There might have been (and may still be) disagreements between different intelligence services on such issues, but I believe that Israelis trust, first and foremost, their own assessments. ”

A year ago, Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak said “every option was on the table” at a joint press conference with Robert Gates, so what is the reason behind an apparent change in tone ? Is there a real change in strategy or is there now a coherent set of tactics/understanding between Israel and the US on how to confront either a nuclear Iran or how to outright prevent Iran getting the bomb?

Menashri says: “I am not sure there is a real strategic change, but possibly recognition that the harsh statements of the past may have not been very helpful. ”

Landau says that the real problem is that Iran clearly has far reaching hegemonic ambitions – and that the first victim will be the Gulf states. Indeed, the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi and Kuwait are beginning to express public concern. There was also a report in The Financial Times earlier this year, alleging that Saudi Arabia had taken the unprecedented step of allowing Israel an air corridor if they launched a preemptive attack.

Menashri says : “The Arab states are concerned from Iran (and its Shi’ite Islam), no less than Israel. I saw the reports in the press about allowing Israel a corridor to act. My immediate thought was: why won’t they do it themselves?”

On the ultimate question of whether Israel would ever contemplate acting unilaterally Menashri  says, “I am meeting prominent politicians from all over the world. The fact that they are asking this question may has been because they don’t trust that others will do something, or they were convinced by Israeli public statements that it is only waiting for a green light to move on. Of course, when you have one side stating that Israel should be wiped out of the map of universe, and the other side speaking of an existential threat… nothing can be absolutely excluded. But I want to believe that Israel won’t do that. “