In the highest level visits to Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution, delegations from Britain and the European Union will lobby President Mohammad Khatami over the next two days for his support in a global struggle against terrorism.

Even in Iran there is a sense that times are changing with bewildering speed. As one pro-reform newspaper commented, it was not so long ago that with every explosion or hijacking, the finger of suspicion would be pointed at Tehran's clerical regime.

However, the talk among the reformists surrounding Mr Khatami, as well as his hardline opponents, is now about the "opportunities and threats" facing Iran in the aftermath of the suicide attacks on the US.

On the eve of his scheduled arrival last night, Jack Straw, the UK foreign secretary, contrasted the "human understanding" shown by Iran, which he counted among the "decent leaders of the Islamic world", with that of the jubilant reaction of Saddam Hussein's isolated regime in neighbouring Iraq.

Mr Khatami, a reformist cleric, swiftly condemned the atrocities of September 11. He conveyed his deepest sympathy to Americans and offered to the country's number one ideological enemy the promise of joining a worldwide effort against terrorism.

Iran's president may have been acting partly in the interests of self-preservation, to ward off any hasty military retaliation by the US. After all, the last State Department report on global terrorism described Iran as the "most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000" for its backing of Lebanon's Hizbollah and militant Palestinian groups that, like Iran, deny Israel's right to exist.

But it is also clear that the Khatami camp sees the terrorist assault on the US both as a chance to advance Iran's own national interests, while taking another step to weaken the real hold on power maintained by the president's hardline opponents. A rapprochement with the US, on the right terms, would be broadly welcomed by an Iranian public that has supported its president's detente policy.

It is a risky strategy. The deep divisions within Iran's factional politics surfaced last week when Islamist militiamen, backed by police and other security forces, brutally broke up an unauthorised candle-lit vigil for the US victims held by several hundred Iranians. Preserving the US as the "Great Satan" and the "enemy" that is seeking to topple the system remains the chief ideological pillar underpinning the Islamic regime.

General Colin Powell, US secretary of state, in seeking to build as broad a pro-US coalition as possible, has responded positively to Mr Khatami's overture, but with caution. Washington is sensitive to the complexity of the power struggle in Iran and does not overestimate Mr Khatami's capacity to respond. Direct contacts between the two states were mostly severed in 1980 when the US cut relations in response to the seizure of its embassy and staff in Tehran. But a message from Gen Powell was passed through the Swiss ambassador to Iran, who represents US interests, and he flew to Washington, presumably with a reply, at the weekend.

Mr Straw is also reported to be carrying a message. The immediate aim of the missions to Tehran by Mr Straw and the EU delegation headed by Javier Solana, foreign policy chief, and Louis Michel, Belgium's foreign minister, appears to be to solicit Iran's support for US-led strikes on Afghanistan.

In public, Iran's government is opposed to any retaliatory move that is not under the leadership of the United Nations. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader whose constitutional powers far exceed those of the president, has declared that Iran would condemn any attack because of the risk to innocent lives. Although Iran's Shia Muslim leadership is bitterly opposed to the Sunni fundamentalism of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban - and came close to war with them in 1998 after 10 of its diplomats were murdered in the northern city of Mazar-I-Sharif - Tehran would not endorse a US-led assault on a fellow Muslim state.

In private, however, Iran may agree to discreet co-operation with an operation restricted to strikes against bases of Osama bin Laden, the "prime suspect" in the eyes of the US. Such co-operation could include sharing of intelligence and limited use of Iranian airspace over its 900km border with Afghanistan.

Iranian analysts suggest that more pragmatic conservatives close to the supreme leader might agree to such action on the grounds of national interests. Co-operation by Tehran could be rewarded, eventually, by an easing of US economic sanctions. But Tehran would condemn a wider assault on Afghanistan certain to lead to many deaths and another exodus of refugees to join the 2m already sheltering in Iran from the ravages of war and drought.

While Iran could play a neutral or even moderating role in the short term, there is no escaping the central issue of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and Tehran's support for groups deemed by the US to be terrorist. While some Iranian clerics have denounced all forms of killing of innocent people, some figures have suggested that Israeli civilian victims of Palestinian suicide attacks do not fit into that category.

There is a recognition that Iran will only be able to extricate itself from the Middle East conflict in the context of a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And even if Mr Khatami wished to prevent elements of the Iranian regime, including the Revolutionary Guards, from supporting and training radical groups, it is doubtful he has the powers to do so.

For the US, rapprochement with Iran is viewed with suspicion within the Bush administration and by Israel's supporters in Washington. In June, for example, the US accused unnamed members of the Iranian government of supporting Saudi Hizbollah, which was held responsible for the deaths of 19 US airmen in a bomb attack in Saudi Arabia in 1996.

Ultimately, these complexities are almost certain to dampen any immediate optimism about the role that Iran can play. Indeed, it seems that the most the western alliance can hope for is that Iran remains neutral.

more from FT.com
Further comment & analysis
The war in Afghanistan
Attack on Afghanistan
Attack on terrorism

EMAIL THIS PRINT THIS MOST POPULAR