Nuclear Iran: Not quite too late IRAN is facing sanctions of unprecedented severity. On December 31st Barack Obama signed into law measures demanded by Congress to punish any foreign financial institution transacting business with Iran's central bank, the conduit for most of its oil contracts. On January 23rd the European Union, which buys about a fifth of Iran's exported oil, is set to ban future purchases. Under American prompting, Japan and South Korea, which together take a similar amount of Iran's oil, are looking for alternative supplies. These measures follow November's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's watchdog, detailing aspects of Iran's nuclear activity that make sense only if the aim is to be able to make nuclear weapons. The sanctions are also meant to show a jumpy Israel that there is an alternative to a military attack. This newspaper has favoured sanctions because an Israeli assault might start a regional conflagration, dragging in America - and even then might not succeed. But given that a variety of sanctions over the past 30 years has failed to change Iran's behaviour, sceptics, and not just those in Israel, are entitled to ask if sanctions, or indeed anything short of an attack, is really likely to stop Iran getting a bomb now. That is the question posed by Republican candidates in America's presidential campaign, sensing a chance to depict Mr Obama as weak. There is no certain way of getting Iran to drop its quest for nuclear weapons. The latest sanctions will cause it more pain, but in the short run are unlikely to weaken its resolve. China, which is Iran's biggest trading partner and has little truck with sanctions, will probably take up much of the slack created by Europe and by America's Asian allies. Barter deals will get around restrictions on Iran's central bank. And the fragile economies of Europe and America would suffer if Iran's oil exports disappeared from the world market. Libya's oil may be flowing strongly again and the Saudis, ever eager to do Iran down, may pump a bit more. But a jittery oil market is likely to send prices higher, helping Iran but not oil consumers. Yet the latest sanctions are nevertheless worthwhile. Their impact may be cumulative and psychological rather than sudden and material. Iran's rulers may regard any sacrifice for the sake of the nuclear programme as bearable, but ordinary Iranians, even if they patriotically support it, may feel differently and find ways to express their dissatisfaction. Iran's threats to close the Strait of Hormuz and punish Gulf producers who make up the oil shortfall suggest a regime under strain. Moreover time may not be on Iran's side (see article). Though Israel says that the recent movement of centrifuges to a facility in a mountain near Qom suggests that Iran could produce a device this year, American intelligence apparently reckons that Iran, however close to a breakout capacity, is still several years away from having the right sort of missile warheads. Iran has been slowed by the sabotage campaign being waged, presumably by Israel and assorted Western agencies. It has also been rattled by the Arab spring. Don't forget the carrots Iran's divided regime has yet to reach the point of asking itself whether sticking to its nuclear guns is really worth the pain. It may never do so. Yet the West should persist in reminding it of the gains it would enjoy if it were to eschew deceit and show flexibility, say by letting spent fuel from reactors be taken to neutral third countries. A "grand bargain," seemingly forgotten, is still worth tabling. In exchange for Iran abjuring nuclear weapons, the West would stop seeking regime change. An end to Iran's theocracy is desirable, but the West is unlikely to get a nuclear deal unless it offers carrots as well as sticks. A bargain will be hard for Mr Obama to sell to voters; but he should ask the Republicans if they really want to start a war.