The pressure on Iran is growing on all fronts

Perhaps somewhat unexpectedly, but nevertheless audaciously, the EU Foreign Ministers - including the ministers of Europe's incoming 10 - meeting in Luxemburg, managed to strike a common position on Iran. This time around Europe spared no love.

Its message to Iran was clear: "Sign the International protocol committing not to produce nuclear weapons", do so "very quickly and unconditionally" and "accept stricter UN inspections". To top it off, Europe declared that it would not exclude the use of force in eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.

Despite the loud rhetoric, the reality is that the U.S. and Europe are coming closer together on major international strategic questions such as WMD proliferation, terrorism, and yes, Iran. It is not at all surprising that it should be so. After all, Iraq, for all its negatives also conveyed a sobering lesson: for Europe to matter, it must get serious on international security.

It also seems the Europeans are finally coming to terms with the reality of America's new strategic direction. They are finally realising that it's not about getting a new person into the White House. The domestic set-up in the U.S. suggests that the Democrats are equally serious about security as are the Republicans.

In fact, Senators Joseph Liberman and John Kerry are going to the political right of the president on security. This means that Europe in order to matter will have to parallel the U.S. in threat assessment and engagement abroad; and not count on checkmating the Whitehouse in hope of a more "moderate" alternative.

No wonder then that the draft version of Solana's common European foreign and security policy recently presented makes the fight against weapons of mass destruction a priority. What then is to be said about Iran? Time is running out; cooperation is now the only option for the Iranian conservative clerics. Here, Europe and the U.S. see far more eye-to-eye than they did on Iraq. Also, whatever gap remains, it's likely to grow narrower.

The renewed urge on both sides of the Atlantic to repair the damage done to the Euro-American relationship should not be ignored by Tehran. Even Richard Perle - one of Washington's main hawks - played it down while on a visit to Europe this week, keeping much of the anti-European rhetoric to himself.

Also America is resource-exhausted, while Europe remains eager to redeem its Iraq performance - making for another two good reasons as to why the two are likely to work together on Iran.

Nor should Iran count on Russia. While the latter has come to its rescue in the past, Putin will find it more difficult to do so in the future; particularly if Europe and American manage to agree on a framework for dealing with Tehran. For one, Moscow is desperately trying to smooth-over its relationship with Washington - Putin still needs insurance from Bush that Russia will indeed be forgiven.

What better way to do it, than to work to Washington's advantage with respect to Iran. On the other hand, the Kremlin must finish cementing its strategic relationship with the EU - this means Putin will have to do more to woo not only Messrs Chirac and Schroeder, but also Prime Minister Blair.

Blind partnership with Iran is also becoming increasingly risky in terms of domestic security for the Russian president. According to the PIR Centre, a respected Russian non-governmental arms control organisation, Iran could, by 2006, mount a nuclear warhead on a missile with the potential to threaten 20 million Russians living in the country's south-western region.

With so much left to be said between Russia and Iran regarding the Caspian Basin, it would be utterly irresponsible for Putin to ignore this fact.

Instead, Iran can take note and concede. This means begin full cooperation with the IAEA; allow for extensive international monitoring of all its nuclear facilities and programmes, and agree to the possibility of shipping all spent nuclear fuel to Russia for storing - an option Russia has already extended Tehran's way.

Under no circumstance, does it make sense for Iran to pick the Saddam approach: playing Europe (or parts of it) against the U.S. pressure. For one, the European and the U.S. lines on Iran are unlikely to diverge; Europeans by now know better.

The bet is the two will grow closer together. Second, the U.S. will not be deterred - as it was not in the case of Iraq - by an unorthodox voice inside Europe; Washington will work to split Europe instead, and go through a coalition of the willing if it must.

Europe knows this all to well. The only way to stop America would be for a united Europe to stand on the side of the Iranian clerics. This however is wishful thinking. Europe, too, after all has a security interest in preventing Iran from going nuclear, while retaining the current nuclear status-quo in the Middle East.

The sooner Iran accepts these realities, the better for all.

The writer is adviser on trans-Atlantic relations to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia. This comment is a personal opinion.