Iran's nuclear ambitions not democratic credentials occupy western minds

With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad starting a second presidential term, and opposition protests crushed, how to tackle Tehran is focusing debate in the US, Europe and especially in Israel

Iran's domestic crisis in the aftermath of June's disputed presidential election has dominated world headlines in recent weeks. But as the dust settles it is the international dimension of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's second term – and especially the future of the Islamic republic's nuclear programme – that is concentrating minds in the US, Europe and Israel.

The US vice-president, Joe Biden, made the point bluntly last weekend when he repeated Barack Obama's offer to negotiate with Tehran on the nuclear issue, despite Washington's condemnation of the post-election crackdown. But when asked about Israel's position, Biden's (presumably careful) answer was that the US "cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do".

Conventional wisdom has it that George Bush made clear in the final months of his presidency that he would not give Israel a "green light" to carry out a repeat of its 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.

Biden's message was no green light either – as his boss clarified very firmly to CNN on Tuesday. But it was surely intended as a reminder that an Israeli raid on Iran remains possible (even if Biden declined to say whether the US would allow Israel to overfly Iraq, or supply it with radar identification codes, refuelling and electronic warfare assistance). The US military has certainly made no secret of its view that any Israeli action would be hugely "destabilising" in the light of American commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Intriguingly, the latest comments from the White House followed confirmation that an Israeli submarine, armed with cruise missiles, passed through the Suez Canal recently to take part in exercises in the Red Sea.

"Egyptian permission for Israeli submarines and other vessels to go through the canal shortens the timetables required for Israel to effectively deploy its long-distance strategic arm … to carry out deterrence missions in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean," observed the veteran Israeli military analyst Ron Ben-Yishai. The unspoken assumption is that such missiles could deliver warheads from Israel's undeclared but formidable nuclear arsenal.

The spin from Israel is that both sides wanted to demonstrate co-ordination in the face of the Iranian threat. Cairo refused to confirm the report. But President Hosni Mubarak's hostility to Tehran is no secret. And Biden's interview coincided with a report that Israel had secretly secured agreement from Saudi Arabia to turn a blind eye to any attack on Iranian nuclear sites. (Israeli planes are said to fly regularly through Saudi airspace, leaving behind the fuel drop-tanks with Hebrew markings just to make sure they are noticed.)

Immediate denials from Israel and Riyadh will have done little to dispel the probably deliberate impression that an attack is still on the cards, especially now that Ahmadinejad is going to be president for four more years. In the words of Aluf Benn, the Ha'aretz analyst: "Israeli officials argue that Iran's apparently fraudulent election and its brutal suppression of the subsequent demonstrations reveal the pointlessness of talking with Tehran and the need for stiffer sanctions. The statements of the last few days are meant to bolster this message with hints of possible military action."

Israel has also let it be known that it is lobbying hard to prevent Iran acquiring advanced "game-changing" Russian-made S-300 air defence missiles that could impede any air assault.

Obama reportedly told Binyamin Netanyahu in May that if there was no progress on the Iranian nuclear file by the end of 2010 his administration would turn to other steps, including tougher sanctions – being discussed by G8 leaders at this week's summit in Italy. On Saturday the president made the issue sound even more immediate, speaking of making assessments in the "coming weeks and months". Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, described a "very narrow window" before Iran went nuclear.

This emphasis is striking because while there is general agreement in the west that Iran is close to enriching enough uranium for a weapon, the timing is unclear. In Israel, which western governments suspect of exaggerating the danger from Tehran, the Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, last month put back his estimate of when Iran could acquire a bomb to 2014. Revealingly, he also told MPs that Israel would have an easier time explaining the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons to the world when the country is led by Ahmadinejad than by the defeated moderate Mir Hossein Mousavi (a view warmly embraced in Washington by the hawkish John Bolton, a former senior official in the Bush administration).

And Dagan, Israeli analysts note, has just had his tenure extended for a near-record eighth year, fuelling speculation that the man who (probably) organised attacks on Syria's alleged nuclear reactor, a Hamas arms convoy in distant Sudan, as well as the Damascus assassination of Hizbullah's Imad Mughniyeh, might have some other tricks up his sleeve.

(Hard evidence of Iranian capabilities, if any exists, remains secret. But the cautious Mohammed ElBaradei, the outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke last month of his "gut feeling" that Iran was indeed seeking the ability to produce nuclear arms, if it desired, as an "insurance policy" against perceived threats.)

Predictions remain divided: one is that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the hardliners will need to demonstrate their toughness in the face of western pressure and Israeli threats. "Everyone is waiting to see what will come out of this, but while we're waiting, while we're watching, the [nuclear] clock is ticking," Israel's ambassador in Washington, Michael Oren, told the US. Another scenario, discussed in Gulf countries, is that Tehran may be forced into concessions internationally to assuage opposition anger at home, especially over the economy.

It is too soon to say which view is correct. But it is already clear that the nuclear file, rather than electoral fraud or democracy, is once again the key problem in Iran's troubled ties with the wider world.