SHARP exasperation is the best account of Britain’s view this week of Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog.

In Britain’s eyes, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency has spent the week trying to let Iran off the hook over its nuclear ambitions. He has, with Russian help, tried to blur the “hitherto clear red lines” laid down by Britain, France and Germany, one official said.

The debate on Iran within the IAEA board, which began in Vienna yesterday and ends today, should be a formality. Last month the board voted to send the row to the UN Security Council in New York. But it added a delay of a month to see if Iran complied. Iran has spent that time havering about a Russian offer to do the most controversial work on Russian soil.

It has also badgered supporters to let it continue “experimental” uranium enrichment. This week, ElBaradei has leaned towards this concession — to European annoyance.

“We are very resistant to these ideas,” one European official said. If Iran is allowed to continue experimental work, it will be able to perfect the most difficult techniques: running centrifuges and purifying gas. “We’d also have no control over its procurement activities,” the official added. Iran would have licence to buy kit abroad.

ElBaradei has said that he fears that the row will escalate if it moves to New York. Colleagues also suggest that he might feel it a personal failure — or at least, a loss of the most challenging part of his job.

In the European view, there is no room even for a clash this week. Iran has failed to comply with the board’s requests to freeze its work, so the transfer of the row to New York should be automatic. Barring another hitch, the council could begin talks on it next week.

Pakistan: Never our fault

Never apologise, never explain; never accept the blame. Shaukat Aziz, the Pakistan Prime Minister, was in uncompromising form yesterday in London, delivering his message with trademark smoothness.

The July 7 bombings? “These events, which we deplore, in our view are domestic issues for Britain,” he argued. “One or two of the people [the bombers] may have visited Pakistan, but our security services have not established any such link.”

What about the nuclear ambitions, of its neighbour, Iran? “We believe that China and Russia can play a major role.” And Pakistan’s role as employer of A.Q. Khan, the scientist who sold Iran nuclear knowhow? Aziz maintains: “There were some linkages between people, long ago, but the IAEA has cleared us and taken it off the table.” This is not true; the IAEA has said for three years [in ElBaradei’s report this week, too] that it wants more details.

Afghanistan? Aziz, in essence, criticised the Government of Hamid Karzai, and British and Nato forces. Drugs, guns and militants “should be interrupted on the other side” of the border, he said.

What about the exile of the political leaders Nawaz Sharif [whom President Musharraf deposed] and Benazir Bhutto? “The presence or absence of any leader is a legal matter and they have to address it through the legal system.”

No doubt it is tedious to be lectured by the world, as Pakistan is on so many fronts. But this stonewalling does not rid the country of some responsibility for the region, or for progress towards democracy.

Bremner, Blair and Bush

RORY BREMNER'S mimicry of Tony Blair’s dilemmas in the Iraq war has been a public service of giant proportions, even if he is not about to be made Lord Bremner for his pains [he says Blair did once jokingly offer him a peerage to desist].

His sketches on Blair’s musings, as inconvenient events presented themselves to the premier, have probed at one of the war’s most interesting questions: what was Blair thinking?

But there is an uneasy sense that Iraq may be the death of Bremner, judging by his 48-minute feature film, Beneath Iraq and a Hard Place. Shown on More 4 in January, and presented by the impressionist at London’s Frontline Club on Monday night, it is a sub-Michael Moore attempt to mock the outcome of the war.

But the allegation that the US could not account for 98 per cent of the money spent is sloppy and unfair, in that it analyses just one tranche of the cash going to Iraq. Cheap shots at the US fall flat [and remind us why no British actor should attempt an American accent]. In the sketches, Bush is too big, and Condi too small 9and fat]; and both are upstaged by real-life clips of Donald Rumsfeld. Bremner’s first target — Blair — remains his best.

Explore World News

• World Agenda

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Afghanistan News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• Times Charity Appeal: SolarAid
• Is it Black Monday all over again for Dubai?
• Behind the scenes at the biggest deal