A newscaster on Iranian state television read out a response from Iran's minister of defense, Gen. Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, yesterday.

"Zionists should know that if they do anything evil against Iran, the response of Iran's armed forces will be so firm that it will send them into eternal coma, like Sharon," Najjar said.

Meanwhile, a senior German security official proposed yesterday temporarily pulling the passports of neo-Nazis intending to participate in an Iranian conference on the Holocaust.

Guenther Beckstein, the interior minister of Bavaria, suggested that local authorities temporarily revoke the passports of right-wing extremists known to have expressed interest in participating in the conference in an effort to prevent them from traveling.

"It would massively damage Germany's image if German citizens (took part) in Iran to deny the Holocaust or the right of Israel to exist," said Beckstein, a member of the conservative Christian Social Union, sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the conference earlier this month, the latest step in his campaign against Israel.

"If Europe does not act wisely with the Iranian nuclear portfolio and it is referred to the U.N. Security Council and economic or air travel restrictions are imposed unjustly, we have the power to halt oil supply to the last drop from the shores of the Persian Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz," said Mohammed-Nabi Rudaki, deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.

According to the Israeli News service Haaretz, which first reported the threat on Tuesday based on an Iranian news account - this is the first time an Iranian official has publicly issued a military threat.

Twenty-five percent of the world's oil production passes through the Straits of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean. If Iran were to carry out such a threat, other big oil producers in the region, such as the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, would be unable to export oil.

Raduki also warned that his country might resign its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"The Russian proposal has certain capabilities, but this capability is not sufficient for Iran's nuclear technology," he said on his arrival back from China, where he has been discussing the mounting crisis.

But Larijani, who heads Iran's Supreme National Security Council, did say that "one can not say that it is a negative proposal".

"We had a round of talks over it and we will do the next round," he said.

Larijani did not say when further talks would be held, although officials have already indicated that another meeting with the Russians is likely to take place in mid-February.

Moscow's idea to enrich uranium outside Iran is seen as a way out of a growing crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions and has been backed as a possible solution by China, the United States and European Union.

Iran says it only wants to make nuclear fuel for nuclear power stations it has yet to build, although the ultra-sensitive process of enriching uranium can also be extended to making atomic weapons.

The West is determined to prevent this work from taking place inside Iran.

Iran first appeared cool to the Russian idea when it emerged several months ago, then implicitly rejected it and then embraced it as the beginnings of a possible compromise.

Russia, which has a lucrative one billion contract to build and fuel Iran's first nuclear power station, is eager to prevent the crisis from ending up in New York.

But some Western diplomats have accused Iranians of trying to buy time and avoid being referred to the UN Security Council.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board is to hold an emergency meeting on Iran on February 2 -- when such a referral could take place -- leaving just a small window for a new compromise.

Iran insists it has the right to conduct fuel cycle work as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and denies seeking weapons.

It has also been steadily backing away from a voluntary suspension of fuel cycle work agreed to by its former, more moderate, nuclear negotiators.

On January 10 Iran resumed enrichment research, prompting a new US and EU push for Iran's case to be sent the Security Council.

But Larijani warned that "any sort of haste and irrational behaviour would lead to unfavourable circumstances in the region."

Iran has threatened to resume industrial scale enrichment and limit IAEA inspections if its case is sent to the Security Council -- moves certain to escalate the crisis.

The EU has been negotiating with Iran for more than two years in the hope of persuading the country to voluntarily limit its nuclear activities. A previous offer of trade and other incentives has already been rejected by Tehran.

Of all the conflicts the West has had to confront since the end of the Cold War, the one presently confronting it and Iran is undoubtedly the most serious and dangerous to world peace. To general surprise, and thanks to massive fraud, the country elevated to its leadership the former ultra-conservative mayor of Teheran, [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, who has set himself the objective of "erasing Israel from the map." It would be a mistake to imagine that is just rhetoric. The former head of the Pasdaran [Iran's Revolutionary Guard] knows that today he can act with impunity, so obvious is the West's impotence.

That's why, defying America, the U.N., and the recently mobilized International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran decided on January 10 to resume its uranium enrichment activities and break the seals the IAEA had set on its three nuclear research centers.

Who could believe in purely civilian and industrial research with regard to a country that oozes with oil? Didn't Ahmadinejad assert at the U.N. that nuclear energy is a "gift from God" and that "Iran has the right to master this energy's complete cycle?" He knows that in that regard he can count on the unanimous support of Iran's population, which doesn't understand why the country - flanked on the west and on the east by nuclear powers, i.e., Israel and Pakistan - shouldn't have the right to become one itself. The time remaining before reaching that stage: eighteen months to five years, according to the experts.

To explain this development, we must understand that Iran is the great beneficiary of the rash and foolish policy the United States has conducted in the region over the last three years.

1. After supplying Saddam Hussein with weapons when he attacked Iran (1980), the White House's little geniuses decided to go to war against their former Iraqi allies. As they did with the Taliban in Afghanistan - other former allies - they obligingly got rid of the Teheran regime's two principal enemies in the region, Saddam and the Taliban.

Thank you, Mr. Bush!

2. In the same fell swoop, the Iraqi "democratic revolution" brought Iran's natural allies in Iraq to power, i.e., the Shiites.

Thanks again, Mr. Bush!

3. But above all, the disastrous recurrence of a war against a country that was not producing weapons of mass destruction has militarily, politically and psychologically rendered impossible any recourse to force in countries like Iran and North Korea, that make no bones about preparing for an attack. War: a joker we won't be able to use in case we need to.

Bravo, Mr. Bush!

As for the Europeans, persuaded that they themselves are protected from history, they have offered their good offices in the form of negotiations between France, England and Germany on the one hand and Iran on the other. The result: nil, with the Iranians making no effort to conceal that the Europeans were nothing but useful idiots who allowed them to gain time.

Now recourse to the Security Council appears inevitable. And for once, Americans, French, Russians and Chinese are in agreement in their condemnation of Iran for failing to keep its promises.

But the latter have already made clear that that they couldn't care less. War? I've posited above why even the United States can't contemplate it. Economic sanctions in the form of an embargo on Iranian oil? It's highly likely that the Chinese, who draw 12% of their oil supplies from Iran, would veto such action. We can't hide the fact: The slap in the face that the U.N. and the international community are about to receive from Teheran will take us into a new post-war phase, perhaps the most dangerous of all.

After the Cold War, characterized by the balance of nuclear terror, came the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the United States' sole domination of the world. That period ended September 11, 2001. After the nuclear peril, the terrorist peril. Today we are entering a new phase that combines the two preceding ones: nuclear terrorism. That could be exercised either by States or by international networks (al-Qaeda).

If the danger is so great, it's because the balance of terror is a game that, to succeed, must be played by two. However we're now entering an era of dissemination of nuclear terror. No one can answer for anyone else, neither allies, nor adversaries. And historians will say that the inability of Europeans to unite around objectives they all share will have been a renunciation, not only of power, but also of independence.

Pourmohammadi did not elaborate and did not give any evidence.

In early January, an Iranian military flight carrying a commander of the country's elite Revolutionary Guards and 10 others crashed while trying to make an emergency landing, killing all aboard.

On Dec. 6, 2005, a military transport plane crashed into a 10-story building near Tehran's Mehrabad airport, killing 115 people. The plane, a U.S.-made C-130, had suffered engine trouble and the pilot was returning to the airport when the aircraft suddenly lost altitude and slammed into the apartment building. Most of the passengers were Iranian journalists.

Pourmohammadi said the insecurity provoked by the Western nations was in response to "the victory of people in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon," referring to recent electoral wins by Shiite coalitions, Hamas and Hezbollah in those countries.

"But the countries - the U.S., Britain and Israel - should know (such victories) are irreversible for Muslim countries, inspired by Iranians," he said.

In London, a Foreign Office spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in keeping with ministry policy, said the British government refuted the latest allegations made by Tehran.

"As with the allegations over the bomb explosions earlier this week, these allegations are completely without foundation," he said Thursday.

Pormohammadi's accusations came a day after Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the guards, rejected the possibility of terrorist sabotage in Falcon crash.

Iran has a history of aircraft accidents involving a heavy loss of life. The government has blamed the U.S. trade embargo, which makes it impossible for Iran to buy parts for its old American-built aircraft. Critics have said the planes are poorly maintained.

Pourmohammadi also said authorities have detained at least 10 suspects in the two bombings that killed at least nine people on Tuesday in the southwestern city of Ahvaz. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday blamed "the occupiers of Iraq" - inferring the United States and Britain - for the bombings.

The deal, seen as a cornerstone of the emerging alliance between India and the United States, “will die in the Congress,” he said.

The U.S. Embassy confirmed that Mulford was accurately quoted. The State Department in Washington said later that Mulford wasn’t speaking for the U.S. government.

“The ambassador was expressing his personal opinions about what the potential political outcome might be. He was giving his personal assessment of how the Congress might react to such an action by India,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

First direct link
Mulford’s frank comments were the first time a senior U.S. official has made a direct link between India’s stance on the Iran issue and the nuclear deal.

After Mulford’s comments, India reiterated that the two issues should remain separate.

“We categorically reject any attempt to link (Iran) to the proposed Indo-U.S. agreement on civil nuclear energy cooperation, which stands on its own merits,” Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said in a statement.

“The position that India will take on this issue at the IAEA will be based on India’s own independent judgment.”

Under the deal, Washington is to share civilian nuclear technology and supply nuclear fuel to India in return for New Delhi separating its civilian and military nuclear programs and allowing international inspections of its atomic facilities.

The deal was signed in July when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Washington, and marked a major policy shift for the United States, which imposed sanctions on India in 1998 after it conducted nuclear tests. The restrictions have since been lifted.

IAEA referral of Iran to the Security Council could lead to economic and political sanctions against Tehran, which the United States and European powers fear could use its nuclear program to develop weapons. Tehran insists its program is for generating electricity.

European countries believe they have enough votes at the IAEA, which will hold an emergency board session on Feb. 2, to haul Iran before the Security Council. But they are seeking support from Russia, China and key developing nations, such as India.

Domestic pressure
New Delhi voted in September with the U.S. and European powers on an earlier IAEA resolution that could have led to Iran’s referral to the council.

But the Indian government faced fierce domestic criticism over the move from its left-wing political allies, who accused it of selling out a longtime ally to curry favor with Washington. New Delhi has, in recent weeks, appeared hesitant to repeat the vote.

India, which has few domestic sources of fuel, also plans to build a 1,750-mile gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan, a project that has raised concerns in Washington.

“We have made it known to (India) that we would very much like India’s support because India has arrived on the world stage and is a very important player in the world,” Mulford said.
© 2006 The Associated Press.

Scholz - who is a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) - said Berlin should first try to get binding guarantees from the NATO alliance that it would protect Germany in case nuclear threats were directed at the country.

But he insisted if such guarantees were not spelled out in a formal NATO doctrine, then Germany needed to ponder building its own nuclear deterrence system.

Such a move would clearly violate the 2+4 Treaty which paved the way for Germany's 1990 reunification by formally ending post-World War II occupation rights in the country for the US, the former USSR, Britain and France.

Under article three of the Treaty, Germany renounces "the manufacture and possession of and control over nuclear, biological and chemical weapons."

Rainer Stinner, a member of the opposition Free Democrats (FDP) in parliament, sharply criticized calls for German nuclear weapons.

"If we start questioning international treaties, what right do we have to demand that others adhere to them?" said Stinner, adding, "Germany's security would be reduced - not increased - through the possession of nuclear weapons."

Last week French President Jacques Chirac warned that France could use nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism against his country.

Chirac did not name any country but was widely seen to have been referring to Iran which is suspected of seeking to build nuclear weapons - an allegation strongly denied by Tehran.