"We are asking they step down from their ivory towers and act with a little logic," Ahmadinejad said. "Who are you to deprive us from fulfilling our goals?

"You think you are the lord of the world and everybody should follow you. But that idea is a wrong idea."

In Vienna, Austria, the International Atomic Energy Agency said a special meeting of its 35-nation board of governors would be held Feb. 2 at the request of Britain, France and Germany.

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said European nations were seeking the "greatest possible consensus" on dealing with Iran, and the upcoming meeting was a "very important moment."

"What we wish is that there is the greatest possible consensus to mark clearly the limit of what we can accept," he said in Berlin after meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Earlier, Iran's foreign minister said he did not believe the country would be referred to the Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and political sanctions. However, diplomats say the council is unlikely to take such action since China and Russia, two veto-wielding members, oppose referral.

Tehran's defiant tone came as France, with U.S. backing, rejected Iran's request for a resumption of negotiations, saying Tehran must first suspend its nuclear-related activities.

Iran asked for a ministerial-level meeting with France, Germany, Britain and the European Union, but its decision to resume some uranium enrichment-related activities "means that it is not possible for us to meet under satisfactory conditions to pursue these discussions," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Denis Simonneau said in Paris.

"Iran must return to a complete suspension of these activities."

In Washington, Rice and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana also rejected any return to talks.

"There's not much to talk about," Rice said during a photo session at the State Department with Solana.

Rice said Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapons capability or "to pursue activities that might to a nuclear weapons capability."

Later, during a speech at Georgetown University, Rice said the international community was united in its belief that Iran "stepped over a line when it broke the seals" at its main uranium enrichment facility and resumed reprocessing nuclear fuel.

"The Iranians want to make this about their rights. It's not about their rights," Rice said. "It's about the ability of the international system to trust them with the capabilities and technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon.

"They have a history with IAEA of not disclosing, with covering their activities and so no one does trust them with those technologies."

Solana agreed that "there is not much point" in resuming talks if there is "nothing new on the table."

The European countries have drawn up a draft IAEA resolution asking the Security Council to press Tehran "to extend full and prompt cooperation to the agency" in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities - though it stops short of asking the council to impose sanctions.

A European diplomat accredited to the IAEA said Wednesday there were no significant changes in the language of the draft resolution.

"We are pretty well where we were yesterday," the diplomat said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media about the draft.

Russia and China - as well as Egypt, which also sits on the 35-nation IAEA Board of Governors - are reluctant to support Iran's referral.

"In view of the overall situation, we regard the possibility of the hauling of Iran's nuclear case to the Security Council to be weak," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told state radio.

"During the past 10 days we have tried to relay our message to all relevant parties, including the Europeans, about Iran's readiness to negotiate on the production of nuclear fuel."

Mottaki said he hoped European countries would avoid taking steps that could only worsen the current situation - an apparent reference to U.S. and European talk of sanctions.

Ahmadinejad shrugged off the draft resolution, calling it politically motivated and said he was unconcerned by the attempts to refer Iran to the council.

"There isn't any problem. This is their endeavor. We can't stop others from trying," he told reporters.

The United States accuses Iran of trying to secretly build nuclear weapons - a charge Iran denies. Britain, France and Germany, with U.S. backing, have been trying to persuade Iran to import nuclear fuel instead of having its own uranium enrichment program, but Iran has rejected this.

The Bush administration sent U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns to London to coordinate a strategy with Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia on dealing with Iran. Burns conceded differences remained after Tuesday's meeting.

"We reached a consensus on some points ... others need to be worked on," he said in Bombay, India, during a South Asia tour.

"There is a consensus that Iran should turn back, return to negotiations and suspend its nuclear program. But that's not the path Iran is on now."

A delegation of Israeli security experts was in Moscow on Wednesday to meet with Russia's Security Council and Foreign Ministry in hopes of winning Russian backing for Security Council referral.

Russia's Interfax news agency said the head of country's nuclear energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, met with the delegation led by Israeli National Security Chief Giora Eiland.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy was scheduled to meet with Russian officials on Thursday.

"There is only one thing worse than ... exercising the military option," says Sen. John McCain. "That is a nuclear-armed Iran. The military option is the last option, but cannot be taken off the table."

Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," McCain said Iran's nuclear program presents "the most grave situation we have faced since the end of the Cold War, absent the whole war on terror."

Meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bush employed the same grim terms he used before invading Iraq. If Iran goes forward with nuclear enrichment, said Bush, it could "pose a grave threat to the security of the world."

McCain and Bush both emphasized the threat to Israel. And all the usual suspects are beating the drums for war. Israel warns that March is the deadline after which she may strike. One reads of F-16s headed for the Gulf. The Weekly Standard is feathered and painted for the warpath. The Iranian Chalabis are playing their assigned roles, warning that Tehran is much closer to nukes than we all realize.

But just how imminent in this "grave threat"?

Thus far, Tehran has taken only two baby steps. It has renewed converting "yellowcake" into uranium hexafluoride, the gaseous substance used to create enriched uranium. And Iran has broken the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals at its nuclear facility at Natanz, where uranium hexafluoride is to be processed into enriched uranium. But on Saturday, the foreign ministry said it was still suspending "fuel production."

However, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared, "There are no restrictions for nuclear research activities under the NPT," the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran has signed.

Here, Iran's president is supported by his countrymen and stands on the solid ground of international law. Yet Secretary of State Condi Rice said last week, "There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment."

Is Condi right?

Unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, which clandestinely built nuclear weapons, Iran has signed the NPT. And Tehran may wish to exercise its rights under the treaty to master the nuclear fuel cycle to build power plants for electricity, rather than use up the oil and gas deposits she exports to earn all of her hard currency. Nuclear power makes sense for Iran

True, in gaining such expertise, Iran may wish to be able, in a matter of months, to go nuclear. For the United States and Israel, which have repeatedly threatened her, are both in the neighborhood and have nuclear arsenals. Acquiring an atom bomb to deter a U.S. or Israeli attack may not appear a "peaceful rationale" to Rice, but the Iranians may have a different perspective.

Having seen what we did to Iraq, but how deferential we are to North Korea, would it be irrational for Tehran to seek its own deterrent?

And, again, just how imminent is this "grave threat"?

"We don't see a clear and present danger," Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA has just told Newsweek.

Some put the possibility of an Iranian bomb at 10 years away. Con Coughlin, defense and security editor of the London Telegraph, writes that the 164 centrifuges in the Natanz pilot plant could enable Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single bomb – in three years.

If the threat were imminent, Israel, which invaded Egypt in 1956, destroyed the Syrian and Egyptian air forces on the ground in a surprise attack in 1967, and smashed an Iraqi reactor before it was completed in 1981, would have acted. And with an estimated 200 nuclear weapons, Israel is fully capable of deterring Iran – and of massive retaliation if she is attacked by Iran.

Iran has attacked neither Israel nor our forces in the Gulf, and the Ayatollah Khamenei is said to be reining in Ahmadinejad. So, it would seem that Iran does not want a war.

Congress thus has the time to do the constitutional duty it failed to do when it gave Bush his blank check to invade Iraq at a time of his choosing.

Few today trust "intelligence reports," War Party propagandists or the word of exiles anxious to have us fight their wars. Congress should thus hold hearings on how close Tehran is to a nuclear weapon and whether this represents an intolerable threat, justifying a preventive war that would mean a Middle East cataclysm and a worldwide depression. Then it should vote to declare war, or to deny Bush the power to go to war.

The "Bush Doctrine" notwithstanding, if Congress has not put the "military option on the table," neither George Bush nor John McCain can put it there. That is the Constitution still, is it not?


Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire.

Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate

Fears of supply disruption from the world's fourth largest crude exporter, along with rising tensions in fellow OPEC member Nigeria, sent U.S. crude oil futures to a three-month high near $67 per barrel this week.

The United States and three European Union nations are pressing the 15-member U.N. Security Council to take up the Iranian nuclear issue, which could open the door to potential oil sanctions.

But two key U.N. Security Council members that carry veto powers -- China and Russia -- have multibillion-dollar oil and natural gas projects hanging in the balance, and China depends on Iran's imports to quench its oil thirst.

"I have a hard time seeing how oil investments could be targeted given the interests of Russia and China," said Julia Nanay, a senior director at PFC Energy in Washington.

Iran wants to sign a major oilfield deal to give China's Sinopec a stake in the giant Yadavaran oilfield in southern Iran, which could require investment of at least $2 billion.

And Russia's LUKOIL holds a minority stake in the Anaran field in western Iran near the Iraqi border.

Iran raised the stakes in its row with the West this month by removing U.N. seals on equipment that purifies uranium, which can be used for power, or if highly enriched, in bombs.

The United States and the European Union's three biggest powers said talks with Iran on the issue were at a dead end, and moved to refer the matter to the Security Council.

Tehran denies accusations it is seeking nuclear weapons and says it needs nuclear technology to generate electricity.

China has blocked Security Council efforts to sanction countries like Sudan, where China has a huge oil deal. Sudan's Darfur region is beset by widespread violence between fractious rebel groups, government forces and a government-backed militia.

China's thirst for oil has made it cordial with nations that have raised U.S. diplomatic hackles -- including Iran, Sudan and OPEC member Venezuela.

"I think sanctions that impact oil flows from Iran are very unlikely," said Jamal Qureshi, also with PFC Energy. "The Chinese are major importers of Iranian crude and they would not be too happy to see that." China imported about 300,000 barrels per day of Iranian crude in 2005.

China's oil demand is expected to grow about 14 percent by 2007 to hit 7.9 million bpd, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, versus U.S. demand growth of about 3 percent.

Other major buyers of Iranian crude oil include Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Europe, according to the EIA, the statistical arm of the Department of Energy.

If Iran halted exports of around 2.4 million bpd, the rest of the world's spare capacity would not be able to make up the shortfall, making $100 per barrel crude oil prices highly likely in the short term, experts said.

Iran has warned that oil prices would rise "beyond levels the West expects" if its opponents pursued punitive sanctions, and says it could repatriate an unknown amount of oil earnings it holds in foreign accounts.

ACHILLES HEEL

Instead of oil sanctions, experts expect a step-by-step application of sanctions that could restrict travel visas, air flights, spare parts, arms sales or gasoline to Iran.

"Iran's vulnerability is its gasoline imports," said James Placke, senior associate with Cambridge Energy Research Associates and a former U.S. diplomat.

According to the EIA, Iran in 2005 imported about 170,000 bpd, or about a third of its gasoline supplies.

Some warn that Iran could retaliate against international pressure and unilaterally rein back its crude oil exports.

"Oil is now going to be their weapon of choice," said Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Co.

"If the Security Council ultimately passes a sanctions resolution that has some teeth in it, the Iranians will respond in some way," Placke said. "You can count on it."

Others disagree.

"Iran is not going to shut the spigots -- they need the money," PFC Energy's Nanay said. "But if there's a U.N. referral, I can see the markets getting jittery."

The U.S. Congress could beat the U.N. to the punch.

The Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005, which is making its way through Congress, would expand sanctions for doing business with Tehran.

The Bush administration has pressed to stall the bill while it pursues a diplomatic solution.

I’m curious whether a military scenario will unfold after Iran continues its nuclear tests. [Russian Defense Minister Sergei] Ivanov said he was concerned. Of course, he was echoing a statement by the Interior Ministry. However, the day before, he said he hoped that tensions between Iran and the West would not develop into armed conflict.

Why such a statement? Probably because the Russian chiefs of staff are not excluding the possibility of a military solution. That’s exactly what we’re thinking about right now. Why? Because it is clear that Iran is challenging the West, particularly the United States, but also, to some extent, Russia. Tehran rejected Russia’s proposal to enrich Iranian uranium on our soil, saying they wanted to do it on their own. We can speculate, with some certainty, on Iran’s desire to build an A-bomb and, if we have sufficient basis for suspicion, then military action against Tehran will be highly likely.

The Americans have been the first to prepare for this. In the press, we have already seen some analyses of how things could play out. Several times last year, [U.S. President George W. Bush] hinted that the United States might have to confront Iran in order to depose the harsh regime there and create an Iraq-style government. To what extent is this likely? I think the possibility certainly exists, and the longer Iran continues these nuclear tests, the higher the probability of it happening. Most likely, Russia and China will block the handing over of the so-called nuclear dossier [to the UN Security Council].

It is not profitable for Russia to impose sanctions on Iran, since we just recently signed an agreement to sell them nearly $1 billion worth of medium-range anti-aircraft weapons. These modern weapons are capable of hitting targets up to 25 kilometers away and will probably be used to defend various testing sites in Iran. Therefore, if some attempt is made to strike at the country and the deliveries from Russia are made quickly enough, we can expect a strong response. In other words, Iran will be able to defend itself. However, if ballistic missiles are used, then nuclear sites can be targeted effectively. We must not forget that Russia has its experts working on some of these sites, and is not interested in a military scenario, if only to protect them.

China has similar interests, because it buys oil from Iran. The Americans are a viable threat, since they have virtually surrounded Iran. First of all, they have planes stationed at air bases in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan, so that is one place they can strike from. At the same time, there is Iraq. There is also the possibility that in the case of an attack, the United States will use Azerbaijan. There has recently been such a tendency and communications outposts are already being developed on the border with Iran. These are troubling symptoms of a potential military conflict. This is very alarming. I am 100 percent sure that Russia will block any sanctions because it profits from trade with Iran and loses out from sanctions against the country. At the same time, Russia understands that the Iranian regime is taking certain wrong steps and this is where diplomacy must be put to work. Right now, it is difficult to say what success this diplomacy will have, because Iran is currently behaving with confidence and even defiance. These are my prognoses.

Yesterday, members of Russia’s Security Council...reported that although Russia’s proposal concerning Iran’s possible enriching of uranium on Russian soil was rejected, the next stage of talks will take place in Moscow in February and this topic will come up again. Do you think we can anticipate a change in the stance of either side, Iran or Russia?

You mean whether Iran will agree to enrich its uranium in Russia?

Yes.

I wouldn’t exclude this possibility. Why? Because Russia has ways in which it can pressure Iran. First, there is the weapons supply. There haven’t been any supplies to Iran in a long time and the army is demanding new equipment. This is one argument. The other is that Iran and Russia have common interests around the Caspian Sea and if Iran wants to pursue close relations with Russia, this will be an area where influence can be gained by either side. Perhaps, Russia will offer more advanced weapons to Iran, including systems like the S-300, which we supplied to Syria. Iran, of course, is a different kind of country. It is rich, and if Russia wants to, it has ways of persuading Tehran.

What is the range of the S-300?

Up to 300 kilometers. The equipment I was talking about earlier is for protecting sites on the ground. The S-300, on the other hand, can intercept a ballistic missile. This is one of Russia’s strongest cards, since Iran’s priority right now is the protection of its territory. The country is basically surrounded by NATO bases and American bases, so sooner or later the conflict could develop into a military one.

Are there any other details that you, as a military specialist, would like to add that I haven’t asked you about yet?

I think that given the current situation, Russia will not take any serious steps or follow the West’s cue. As I already mentioned, Russia will probably defend its own interests while helping Iran solve this problem. The reasoning is military and geopolitical. Moscow really doesn’t like American activity in the South Caucasus.... Moscow will never go for a souring of relations with Iran, no matter what Iran does. Right now, Iran can act as an ally, because there is the current question of Iran joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It has already been accepted as an observer [just like India] and in this particular case Russia will profit from creating some sort of alliance with Iran to resist the expansion of NATO and the United States in the South Caucasus and the Middle East. These are important goals for Moscow, and our understanding [of them] allows us to predict what [Moscow] will be doing in the future.

One last question. Next Monday [Jan. 16], the presidents of Iran, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan plan to meet on the border between Iran and Afghanistan [ed. meeting has since been cancelled]. It has something to do with a highway that will connect the three countries. Iran has lately been investing more in the Tajik economy. Do you think that Russia will support this activity in the future? After all, it wants to have influence in the region.

I will say this. In Tajikistan, Iran is no competition for Russia. I am 100 percent sure of this and Moscow’s desire to build new factories to produce aluminum is key here. One single factory would double Tajikistan’s GDP. You know well that Tajikistan’s GDP is only $3 billion. Russia’s military budget is $20 billion. Tajikistan is a poor country with good resources, so Russia profits from the investment, even if it comes from Iran. This isn’t bad at all. It revives the country and Russia benefits from a stronger Tajikistan, so in this case Iran’s actions are only welcome. You may be aware that currently, with India’s help, Tajikistan is modernizing the airfield in Aigi and a new Russian air base will be stationed there. Again, there is no competition here, but simply geopolitical pragmatism. This is why I think Russia, Iran, and India’s goals in Tajikistan, as well as in Central Asia in general, should only be welcomed.

Iran is a serious country, not another two-bit post-imperial rogue waiting to be slapped about the head by a white man. It is the fourth largest oil producer in the world. Its population is heading towards 80 million by 2010. Its capital, Tehran, is a mighty metropolis half as big again as London. Its culture is ancient and its political life is, to put it mildly, fluid.

All the following statements about Iran are true. There are powerful Iranians who want to build a nuclear bomb. There are powerful ones who do not. There are people in Iran who would like Israel to disappear. There are people who would not. There are people who would like Islamist rule. There are people who would not. There are people who long for some idiot western politician to declare war on them. There are people appalled at the prospect. The only question for western strategists is which of these people they want to help.

Of all the treaties passed in my lifetime the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) always seemed the most implausible. It was an insiders' club that any outsider could defy with a modicum of guile. So it has proved. America, sitting armed to the teeth across Korea's demilitarised zone, has let North Korea become a nuclear power despite a 1994 promise that it would not. America supported Israel in going nuclear. Britain and America did not balk at India doing so, nor Pakistan when it not only built a bomb but deceitfully disseminated its technology in defiance of sanctions. Three flagrant dissenters from the NPT are thus regarded by America as friends.

I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has "no right" to nuclear defence?

None the less this month's reopening of the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant and two others, though purportedly for peaceful uses, was a clear act of defiance by Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Inspectors from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remain unsure whether it implies a secret weapons programme but the evidence for this is far stronger than, for instance, against Saddam Hussein. To have infuriated the IAEA's Mohamed ElBaradei takes some doing. As Saddam found, deviousness in nuclear matters is bound to arouse suspicion. Either way, the reopening yielded a strong diplomatic coalition of Europe, America, Russia and China in pleading with Ahmadinejad to desist.

On Monday, Washington's kneejerk belligerence put this coalition under immediate strain. In two weeks the IAEA must decide whether to report Iran to the UN security council for possible sanctions. There seems little point in doing this if China and Russia vetoes it or if there is no plan B for what to do if such pressure fails to halt enrichment, which seems certain. A clear sign of western floundering are speeches and editorials concluding that Iran "should not take international concern lightly", the west should "be on its guard" and everyone "should think carefully". It means nobody has a clue.

I cannot see how all this confrontation will stop Iran doing whatever it likes with its nuclear enrichment, which is reportedly years away from producing weapons-grade material. The bombing of carefully dispersed and buried sites might delay deployment. But given the inaccuracy of American bombers, the death and destruction caused to Iran's cities would be a gift to anti-western extremists and have every world terrorist reporting for duty.

Nor would the "coward's war" of economic sanctions be any more effective. Refusing to play against Iranian footballers (hated by the clerics), boycotting artists, ostracising academics, embargoing commerce, freezing foreign bank accounts - so-called smart sanctions - are as counterproductive as could be imagined. Such feelgood gestures drive the enemies of an embattled regime into silence, poverty or exile. As Timothy Garton Ash wrote in these pages after a recent visit, western aggression "would drain overnight its still large reservoir of anti-regime, mildly pro-western sentiment".

By all accounts Ahmadinejad is not secure. He is subject to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His foe, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, retains some power. Tehran is not a Saddamist dictatorship or a Taliban autocracy. It is a shambolic oligarchy with bureaucrats and technocrats jostling for power with clerics. Despite a quarter century of effort, the latter have not created a truly fundamentalist islamic state. Iran is a classic candidate for the politics of subtle engagement.

This means strengthening every argument in the hands of those Iranians who do not want nuclear weapons or Israel eliminated, who crave a secular state and good relations with the west. No such argument embraces name-calling, sabre-rattling, sanctions or bombs.

At this very moment, US officials in Baghdad are on their knees begging Iran-backed Shia politicians and militias to help them get out of Iraq. From Basra to the suburbs of Baghdad, Iranian influence is dominant. Iranian posters adorned last month's elections. Whatever Bush and Blair thought they were doing by invading Iraq, they must have known the chief beneficiary from toppling the Sunni ascendancy would be Shia Iran. They cannot now deny the logic of their own policy. Democracy itself is putting half Iraq in thrall to its powerful neighbour.

Iran is the regional superstate. If ever there were a realpolitik demanding to be "hugged close" it is this one, however distasteful its leader and his centrifuges. If you cannot stop a man buying a gun, the next best bet is to make him your friend, not your enemy.

simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk