Back to Gideon RachmanThe new US intelligence report on Iran is clearly a bit of a blow to those pressing for military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. As the FT explained this morning: "The key finding in the estimate, the product of more than 18 months of work by the 16 US intelligence agencies, is that Iran is probably not actively seeking to turn nuclear material into weapons."
You might expect that the only people who would be depressed by this news would be the hawks around Dick Cheney. But you would be wrong. I spent a bit of time today with some British policymakers who follow Iran and counter-proliferation closely. And they are not exactly jumping for joy.
Specifically, the Brits are very worried that efforts to push through a new sanctions package against Iran will now be much harder. And they still think further sanctions are justified. Their argument is that even if Iran is not actively trying to "weaponise" uranium (and the non-proliferation people did not seem convinced, even by this) we should not conclude that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons. They argue that the key point is that Iran has an active uranium enrichment programme, which can only be explained as part of a nuclear-weapons programme. And they also point to Iran’s ballistic-missiles programme as further reason for concern.
Leading Democrats in the US are now calling for a policy of dialogue with Iran. The doves in Europe - led by the Germans - are expected to take a similar line. But my British interlocutors today were not convinced. They are not in favour of bombing (the Cheney option) and they do believe in talking to Iran - at some point. But they want to negotiate when Iran is feeling nervous and on the defensive, not when the hardliners in Iran are feeling confident and vindicated. A further concern is that the US intelligence report will play into the hands of President Ahmadi-nejad, who will be able to argue that Iran has faced down the world and humiliated its adversaries. Conversely, those in Iran who might be arguing for concessions on their nuclear programme, will now be weakened.
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays. Occasionally my FT colleagues contribute posts to this blog.
Geoff Dyer is the FT's China bureau chief. He has been a correspondent in Shanghai and in Brazil and has also covered the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries from London.
Roula Khalaf is the FT's Middle East editor. She has worked for the FT since 1995, first as North Africa correspondent, then Middle East correspondent and most recently as Middle East editor. Before joining the FT, she was a staff writer for Forbes magazine in New York. 
James Blitz is the FT's defence and diplomatic editor. He has been the FT's political editor, based in London, and Rome bureau chief. James is a former Moscow bureau chief for the Sunday Times.
Alan Beattie is the FT's world trade editor. He has previously been economics leader writer and spent two years in Washington DC as chief US economics correspondent. Before joining the FT, Alan was an economist at the Bank of England. 
Victor Mallet is the FT's Madrid correspondent. He is a former Asia editor of the FT, and, in more than 20 years at the organisation, has also worked in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In 1990 he escaped from Kuwait after being one of the few foreign correspondents there when Iraq invaded. 
Stefan Wagstyl is the FT's eastern Europe editor, co-ordinating coverage of the region. He has also been the FT's bureau chief in Tokyo and New Delhi.
