David Miliband is Britain’s foreign secretary.

Iran’s nuclear program, and the world’s reaction to it, raise the most profound questions about the strength of international law, the purpose of the United Nations and the rights of states that feel threatened by others. More prosaically, Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a potential flashpoint for war in the Middle East.

…Then there is an Iran whose economy is a mess. Despite sitting on the world’s second largest gas reserves, it imports gas. Corruption is rife — Transparency International ranks Iran 168 out of 180 countries. According to the I.M.F. it has the highest brain drain in the world.

…The nuclear issue cuts to the future of the nuclear nonproliferation regime and the future of the Middle East. Gulf countries would likely join the nuclear bandwagon if Iran goes nuclear. Israel has made it clear that it sees a nuclear Iran as an existential threat and would act if necessary in its self-defense. The consequences of both would be devastating.

To avoid this we need action that shows unity and resolve. That is one reason I went to China last week. The U.N. Security Council needs to take seriously its responsibilities, not just countries such as Britain and China but non-permanent members such as Brazil and Turkey.

…Sceptics say sanctions can be blunt; that Iran would never accept humiliation; and that Iran is still some way from a nuclear capability. All are true — but not the point. Sanctions can be blunt, but they can also be targeted, on the financial system, on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and on nuclear technology. The offer on the table, proposed in June 2008 and still waiting for a reply, allows Iran to claim the rights enjoyed by other states. But with those rights come responsibilities, and Iran’s refusal to clarify its activities means that there is a fundamental lack of confidence in its assertions that the program is for peaceful purposes.

Sanctions are not a silver bullet. But that is not the test. The question is whether targeted, proportionate and reversible sanctions would add to the pressure inside this complex and teeming society for a more sensible attitude on the nuclear issue. I believe they would, that they are needed urgently, and that they can help avert one of the most dangerous flashpoints in world politics today.

Free Iran:  It seems unlikely that any UN sponsored sanction(s) would  persuade this regime to give up on its nuclear pursuit. By focusing so much on the international sanctions for the nuclear issue, Mr. Miliband is falling for the regime’s diversionary tactics.  England, America and their willing Western allies need to focus on unilateral sanctions that focus on the regime’s oil income and tie these sanctions NOT to the nuclear issue but to the Iranian people’s struggle for democracy and human rights.   If the oil income is not cut off, all other sanctions wouldn’t make much of a difference.   Unilateral sanctions, targeted on the regime’s oil income and tied to human rights – that’s the ticket.