Britain questioned the sincerity of the offer, made by Javad Vaeedi, deputy head of the Iran's Supreme National Security Council in a letter.

A senior British official, asking not to be named, dismissed it as "vacuous", saying that "our ministers have been quite clear that we now need to engage the Security Council."

"We're drafting a resolution, but we've not yet circulated it" beyond the governments of Britain, France and Germany, said the official.

Belgium has agreed to refer the Iran nuclear issue to the UN Security Council and supported the convening of an extraordinary meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Feb. 2 and Feb. 3.

Belgium "agrees with the European Trio and the European Union that the time has come for the UN Security Council to become involved and to use all the potential of its diplomacy," Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht conveyed the message in a written statement.

Meanwhile, Israel also vowed not to let the Iranians develop nuclear weapons. Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday that the Jewish state could not reconcile itself to the threat of a nuclear Iran.

"Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us, to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence," Olmert told a joint news conference with Israeli President Moshe Katsav.

"The state of Israel cannot reconcile itself to a situation in which there is a threat against us, just as, in my view, the nations of Europe and the United States cannot reconcile themselves," he said.

"Israel had acted and would continue to act in full consultation with these international elements," he said when asked the possibility of Israel's military intervention.

Comment: Except when it comes to its own nuclear arsenal...

Earlier on Tuesday, an Israeli delegation left for Moscow, Russia, to discuss Israel's concerns over Iran's nuclear armament plans.

Russia on Tuesday cautioned against imposing sanctions on Iran in the intensified dispute over its nuclear program.

"Sanctions are in no way the best or the only way to solve the problem," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a press conference, adding the question of sanctions is "placing the cart in front of the horse."

But he again said the nuclear talks can only resume if Tehran reintroduces its moratorium on nuclear research.

"It is our common goal -- and I am convinced that it is the goal of any country concerned about security issues -- to guarantee the inviolability of the nuclear nonproliferation regime," Lavrov said.

Russia's stances over the issue were echoed by China and the Chinese Foreign Ministry said it was a "good option" to solve the Iran nuclear dispute by diplomatic means.

This accords with the interests of all parties, said Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Kong Quan at a regular press conference in Beijing.

Amid heightened pressures, Iran on Tuesday urged the IAEA to keep the Iranian nuclear case in the technical domain and free from political influences.

Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's representative to the Vienna-based IAEA, made the call during his meeting with IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Alaeddin Borujerdi, chairman of Iran's Majlis ( parliament) National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, also urged ElBaradei to make technical evaluation which is in line with the IAEA mandate rather than political statements on Iran's nuclear program.

"According to international law, Iran's nuclear dossier should not be referred to the UN Security Council," Borujerdi was quoted by the semi-official Mehr news agency as saying.

The Iranian calls came one day after officials of the European trio of Britain, France and Germany as well as the United States, Russia and China held a closed-door meeting in London to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue.

At the London meeting, the European trio informed the other participants of their intention to call for an emergency IAEA board of governors meeting on Feb. 2-3.

In President Bush's first State of the Union message, he essentially accused North Korea, Iran and Iraq of having clandestine nuke programs:

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.

I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

But – at that time – North Korea, Iran and Iraq were signatories to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and had their nuclear materials, facilities and activities subject to IAEA periodic inspection.

As for North Korea, under the so-called Agreed Framework, all existing "nuclear" activities had been "frozen" – under IAEA lock and seal – in return for a promise by the United States of alternative energy supplies.

Now, were ever the IAEA were to determine that a) Iraq was not in compliance with Gulf War Security Council resolutions, or that b) North Korea was not in compliance with the Agreed Framework, or that c) Iran was not in compliance with its Safeguards Agreement, it could ask the U.N. Security Council to impose "sanctions," which could – under the U.N. Charter – include the use of military force.

However, until the IAEA made such a determination and until the Security Council authorized the use of force, Bush would have to "stand by."

So, Bush announced his own National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction in late 2002, launched an unsanctioned pre-emptive attack on Iraq in March (to remove an imaginary nuke threat) and announced ad hoc his Proliferation Security Initiative, whose stated objective was to create a web of international "counter-proliferation partnerships" to prevent "proliferators" from "carrying out their trade in WMD and missile-related technology."

The PSI was "necessary" because "proliferators and those facilitating the procurement of deadly capabilities are circumventing existing laws, treaties and controls against WMD proliferation."

That is, the PSI supersedes existing treaties – including the NPT – and international law, itself.

That's why, at the Seventh NPT Review Conference last year, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi pleaded with the delegates to strengthen the three "pillars" of the treaty: a) nonproliferation, b) peaceful use of nuclear energy, and c) disarmament.

In particular:

Mr. President, the "inalienable right" of the states to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes emanates from the universally accepted proposition that scientific and technological achievements are the common heritage of mankind.

The promotion of the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes has been, therefore, one of the main pillars of the NPT and the main statutory objective of the IAEA.

It is unacceptable that "some" intend to limit the access to peaceful nuclear technology to an exclusive club of technologically advanced states under the pretext of "nonproliferation." This attitude is in clear violation of the letter and spirit of the treaty and destroys the fundamental balance which exists between the rights and obligations in the treaty.

Iran, for its part, is determined to pursue all legal areas of nuclear technology, including enrichment, exclusively for peaceful purposes and has been eager to offer assurances and guarantees that they remain permanently peaceful.

In fact, the previous November, Iran had agreed to negotiate with the Brits-French-Germans on a mutually acceptable agreement that "will provide objective guarantees" to the European Union that Iran's safeguarded nuclear program – explicitly to include uranium-enrichment activities voluntarily suspended for the duration – is exclusively for "peaceful purposes."

But, when the Brits-French-Germans finally got around to submitting their proposal, it explicitly required Iran "not to pursue fuel-cycle activities other than the construction and operation of light-water power and research reactors" – in complete violation of the spirit and letter of the so-called Paris Agreement.

Now, the IAEA was not a party to the negotiations. Nevertheless, under extreme U.S. pressure, the IAEA Board "urged" Iran to accept the offer even though, thereby, they would essentially be requiring Iran to forfeit its "inalienable" rights guaranteed by the NPT and the Iranian Safeguards Agreement.

Well, Iran didn't and has since resumed some of the Safeguarded activities they had voluntarily suspended.

The reaction of our secretary of state?

We agree that the Iranian regime's defiant resumption of uranium-enrichment work leaves the EU with no choice but to request an emergency meeting of the IAEA board of governors … to report Iran's noncompliance with its safeguards obligations to the U.N. Security Council.

What "noncompliance"?

And defying whom?


Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.

Putin, speaking after a meeting with German chancellor Angela Merkel, said "one of the main problems is the enrichment of uranium. We proposed to our Iranian partners to set up a joint enrichment venture on Russian territory. We have heard various opinions from our Iranian partners on that issue. One of them has come from the Foreign Ministry - our partners told us they did not exclude the implementation of our proposal."

Israel and the United States are seeking international action — probably sanctions — against Iran because of its nuclear program.

Iran’s extremist regime is believed to be using a civilian nuclear power program as a cover to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies the charge.

The EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) admitted last week that two years of negotiating with Iran had ended in failure. The EU-3 has now joined the U.S. is calling for Iran’s referral to the United Nations Security Council.

International tensions heightened last week after Iran broke the seals on nuclear facilities and announced it would resume research on uranium enrichment, a process that produces nuclear fuel for reactors or can be used to make an atomic bomb.

Israel dispatched a high-level delegation to Moscow on Tuesday to express Israel’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. The trip reportedly was planned a month ago.

The delegation, headed by National Security Council chief Giora Eiland and the director general of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, Gideon Frank, will try to persuade Russia to refer Iran to the Security Council, media reports said.

The support of Russia and China is crucial since they are permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council, and thus could scuttle any effort to impose sanctions or other punitive measures on Iran.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev would not confirm media reports about the trip to Russia, but he said that Israel is eager to see the issue of Iran referred to the U.N. Security Council.

“We hope that the organized international community will, through the vehicle of the Security Council, present the extremist regime in Tehran with a clear dilemma. Either they totally cease their nuclear weapons development program or they seriously endanger their relationship with the community of nations,” Regev said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is pressing for Iran to agree to a proposal in which Iranian uranium would be enriched in Russia — under Russian supervision. Iran has said it is studying the proposal.

Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday that Israel could not allow “anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us, to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Ahmadinejad also has called the Holocaust a myth and suggested that the Jewish State be relocated in Europe. Iran is planning to host a conference of Holocaust deniers soon.

On Monday Iran's culture ministry had issued the ban: "Taking into account CNN's actions contrary to professional ethics in the past years and their distortion of the president's comments during his press conference on Saturday, the activities of the CNN journalist in Tehran will end and no journalists from CNN will be authorised to come to Iran," the ministry said in a statement.

CNN said it was "very disappointed" by the ban, which it admitted was due to a translation error.

"CNN apologized on all its platforms which included the translation error, including CNN International, CNNUSA and CNN.com and also expressed its regrets to the Iranian Government and the Iranian ambassador to the UN," Nigel Pritchard, a spokesman for the company, said in a statement Monday from Atlanta, where CNN is based.

President Ahmadinejad wasted little time in accepting the apology.

"Taking into account the channel's apology, we are asking that the channel be authorised to resume its activities," he wrote in a letter to the culture minister.

Iran is facing the threat of being referred to the UN Security Council for resuming sensitive nuclear fuel research work which the West fears would give the regime the know-how to build a bomb.

Iran insists such work is entirely legal given it has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has branded nuclear weapons "un-Islamic".

CNN does not have a permanent correspondent based in Tehran due to previous problems with Iranian authorities, notably several years ago when it broadcast images of an illegal party in Tehran where young people flouted regulations on dress and mixed with the opposite sex.

The channel's chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, was in Iran Monday for a short visit. But the mere fact she was granted a visa drew complaints from some hardline newspapers.

One newspaper also accused her of not adequately covering her head.

In April 2005, the Qatar-based Arabic language news channel Al-Jazeera was thrown out of Iran on accusations it was stirring up ethnic violence in its coverage of clashes between ethnic Arabs and security forces in southwestern Iran.

Article IV of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force on March 5, 1970, states:

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Thus, not only does Iran have an "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for electricity, the NPT obligates the nuclear powers to "further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." Iran has gone beyond its obligations under the NPT to assure others of it's peaceful intentions.

According to Dr. Gordon Prather, a nuclear physicist who was the top scientist for the army in the Reagan years, in December, 2003, Iran had signed an Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement and had volunteered to cooperate with the IAEA - pending ratification by the Iranian Parliament - as if the Additional Protocol were actually "in force."

Iran also offered, says Dr. Prather, "to voluntarily forego a complete fuel cycle . . . if the Europeans would get the United States to reverse the campaign of denial, obstruction, intervention, and misinformation."

Iran had already offered on March 23, 2005 a package of "objective guarantees" (developed by an international panel of experts) that met most of the demands later made by the conservative, Washington based Heritage foundation says Dr. Prather.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no "smoking gun" in Iran that would indicate a nuclear weapons program, says Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the IAEA.

Thirty years ago, Iran developing a nuclear capacity "caused no problems for the Americans because, at that time, the Shah was seen as a strong ally, and had indeed been put on the throne with American help", says Tony Benn, Britain's secretary of state for energy from 1975-79.

With world oil production approaching a peak it makes sense for Iran to look toward alternative means for generating electricity, and to reserve its oil supply for other purposes including increasing revenues from the export of the additional oil not used for electricity production.

A major reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S. military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency."

Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism," writes William R. Clark the author Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar.

According to Toni Straka, a Vienna, Austria-based financial analyst who runs a blog, The Prudent Investor, Iran's "proposal to set up a petroleum bourse was first voiced in Iran's development plan for 2000-2005. . . . Cheaper nuclear energy and increases in oil exports from the current level of roughly 2.5 million barrels a day will result in a profitable equation for Iran.

"Only one major actor stands to lose from a change in the current status quo: the US" says Toni Straka, "which with less than 5% of the global population, consumes roughly one third of global oil production."

"There could hardly be a clearer example of double standards than this, and it fits in with the arming of Saddam to attack Iran after the Shah had been toppled, and the complete silence over Israel's huge nuclear armoury," says Tony Benn.

Yes, given the technology and knowledge Iran could develop a nuclear weapon. But "under the current regime, there is nothing illicit for a non-nuclear state to conduct uranium-enriching activities . . . or even to possess military-grade nuclear material," says ElBaradei. Thirty-five to forty countries possess this capability.

Israel - not a signatory to the NPT - has had this capability for years, is believed to have several hundred nuclear bombs, the missiles to deliver them to Iran, and it is no secret that it has been threatening strikes on Iran's Bushehr nuclear electric power plant - just as it launched an unprovoked and illegal attack on Iraq's, Osirak nuclear electric power plant in 1981.

U.S. news media's timidity was a significant factor in the launching of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This invasion has claimed the lives of over 2000 U.S. soldiers and over 180,000 Iraqis. It has left uncounted others wounded and maimed, it has destroyed much of Iraq's - indeed the world's - cultural heritage, and is likely to cost U.S. taxpayers "between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, up to 10 times more than previously thought," according to a report written by Joseph Stiglitz - recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics.

John Ward Anderson of the Washington Post wrote on January 13: "The foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France called Thursday for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for violating its nuclear treaty obligations." Neither he nor the editors or ombudsman at the Post have responded to our request to identify which "nuclear treaty obligations" is Iran violating.

Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jack Boureston and Charles D. Ferguson say, "In pursuing a civilian nuclear program, Iran has international law on its side. . . . The best way to know the full extent of Iran's nuclear doings is to offer it help."

In fact, there are a lot of parallels between Ahmadinejad and the Christian right in the US. Just as the Republicans have succeeded in deflecting the anger and anxieties of many working class Americans onto “cultural” issues such as abortion and stem-cell research, so Ahmadinejad won last year’s presidential elections by presenting himself as the champion of Iran’s poor.

Strategy

Ahmadinejad targeted the Iranian establishment, symbolised by his main rival, ex-president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, for getting rich from the country’s oil revenues.

In any case, it isn’t Ahmadinejad who is calling the shots in Iran. The Iranian regime’s strategy of gradually resuming its uranium enrichment programme has been run by Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

The Financial Times (FT) reports, “Officials in Iran make clear this strategy is approved by the leadership as a whole, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, who holds the last word on matters of state. A well-placed senior official told the FT last month that Mr Larijani answered to Ayatollah Khamanei, and not Mr Ahmadinejad, who had ‘no role’ in security policy.”

My guess is that the top Iranian leaders do intend to develop a nuclear capability. The contrast between the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, who had no weapons of mass destruction, and the impunity enjoyed by the North Korean regime, which almost certainly has some nuclear warheads, gives them a strong incentive to copy the latter.

Whether or not this assessment is correct, the interesting question is what the US and its allies can do to punish Iran’s defiance. The invasion of Iraq has strengthened Iran’s hand by making a military attack on it much more difficult.

Not only are the Pentagon’s forces bogged down in Iraq, but the most powerful political force in the country, the Shia establishment in the south, is closely aligned to Iran. Bush and the Europeans are now talking about imposing UN sanctions on Iran, but it’s hard to see how this can have much effect.

To quote the Financial Times again, “Iran has worked hard to diversify suppliers and encourage self-sufficiency during a 26 year embargo. And with oil past $60 a barrel and rising, Iranian officials doubt that the West—much less energy hungry Asia — will block exports from the world’s fourth biggest supplier.”

This doesn’t mean that the US, or its Israeli proxy, won’t attack Iran. Iraq has shown there are almost no limits to the stupidity and arrogance of the Bush administration. But the results are likely, once again, to demonstrate the limits of US power.

After seven hours of talks Britain, France and Germany announced they are to seek Iran's referral to the security council at a meeting on February 2 and 3 of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Javier Solana, the EU foreign affairs chief, said he was "confident" Russia and China will back the referral.

But both countries expressed serious reservations about future handling of the crisis, in particular the prospect of the security council imposing sanctions on Iran.

Russia, though slowly shifting towards the west's position, is still holding out hope that Tehran may yet accept a compromise. China, which has close economic ties with Iran, is the most hardline in opposing tough action against Tehran.

One European diplomat said: "What is really crucial is support from Russia and China. China does not look too good. China is the major obstacle."

He added that China, which has a veto on the security council, felt squeezed between pressure from the west and dependency on Iranian oil.

A British diplomat said: "There was serious concern about Iranian moves to restart enrichment-related activities contrary to the appeals of the international community not to do so." He added that "there was a thorough exchange of views" on the role of the security council.

The crisis escalated last week when Iran broke seals on uranium enrichment equipment. Iran denies that it has a covert nuclear weapons programme.

The London meeting between senior officials from the US, Britain, France, China and Russia - the five permanent members of the UN security council - plus Germany, was held to try to avoid a repetition of the security council divisions that marked the run-up to the war in Iraq. The west's fear is that China could exercise its veto on Iran's behalf.

The Europeans have begun drafting a resolution to put before the IAEA. "It's short. It calls for [IAEA chief Mohamed] ElBaradei to report Iran to the UN security council," one diplomat said. The western nations have a simple majority in favour of referral but are hoping that Russia and China will back it. The US and Europeans are focusing on Russia in the hope that if Moscow backs their approach, then China will also follow.

President Vladimir Putin, after meeting Angela Merkel on her first visit to Moscow as German chancellor, signalled exasperation with Iran's decision to break the seals. Indicating he was moving towards the west's position, he said: "As for Russia, and Germany, and our European partners and the US, we have very close positions on the Iranian problem."

But he cautioned against "abrupt, erroneous steps" and suggested the issue could still be defused without reference to the UN. He said Iran has not excluded the possibility of accepting a Russian compromise in which Tehran would conduct uranium enrichment in Russia rather than Iran. "One of the main problems is the enrichment of uranium. We proposed to our Iranian partners to set up a joint enrichment venture on Russian territory ... our partners told us they did not exclude the implementation of our proposal."

But China, speaking before the London meeting, said resorting to the security council would "complicate the issue", citing Iran's threat to hit back by halting snap UN inspections at its atomic plants.

The Chinese foreign minister said "all relevant sides should remain restrained and stick to solving the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations".

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said that dialogue with Moscow and Beijing was of "crucial importance".

Iran yesterday banned CNN journalists from the country after the broadcaster misquoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying that Iran wanted nuclear weapons, the ISNA students news agency said.

What happens next

Vienna Europeans plan emergency IAEA meeting on February 2. Iran will try to avoid referral to security council by reopening talks with Russia

New York Once before the security council, the resolution could tell Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. If ignored, talks would get tougher as US and Europe sought sanctions

Tehran Iran could then scrap deal on intrusive nuclear checks, and disrupt oil supplies if sanctions imposed

US/Israel Air strikes could begin to delay Iran's work on nuclear weapon.

Ahmadinejad arrived in Damascus on Thursday upon the official invitation of his Syrian counterpart -- President Bashar al-Assad.

He spoke of the importance of the Palestinian cause and stressed the cause will not come be materialized if occupiers continue to occupy even a tiny part of Palestine's territories.

He stressed that unity, coordination and sympathy among resistance groups for the Palestinian cause is the only guarantee for Palestine's liberation.

The Islamic Republic of Iran supports the Palestinian cause of statehood and liberation of Islamic territories from occupiers, he added.

Elsewhere, he noted that one of the reasons westerners were lined up against Iran's undeniable right to gain peaceful nuclear technology was because of Iran's uncompromising support for Palestine.

The visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Syria is considered another gesture of political support to Damascus and the Islamic resistance, said Hamas political leader Khaled Mishaal.

The Hamas official extended his thanks to the Iranian president for his firm stance on the Palestinian issue, saying the resistance group, Hamas, considers resistance the only way to resolve the Palestinians' rights and success of their avowed goals.

"Look at the fate of others who sought the destruction of the Jewish people. They only brought havoc and destruction to the own people," Mofaz said.

"I know that a large part of the people of Iran do not support his policies but his despicable acts could bring destruction to all of you. You understand what must be done to prevent this," Mofaz added, directly addressing the Iranian people.

It was the toughest statement of Israel's determination to block Iran's nuclear ambitions since the stroke that felled Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon two weeks ago, and it came just two days before the next scheduled international inspection of Iran's nuclear research facilities.

Mofaz's speech to an international conference of security experts in Herzliya, an exclusive resort just north of Tel Aviv, contained a clear warning that Israel if the United Nations and the international community failed to act, Israel would do so.

"Israel has to be able to defend itself," Mofaz said. "This we can do, and we are working on it now."

The Mofaz speech was intended not only for Iran and an international audience but also for Israeli voters, who go to the polls in March in a general election that seems likely to elect a new government led by the new Kadima party, founded by Sharon, to which Mofaz has rallied along with the acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. With the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran looming heavily over the Israeli elections, Mofaz's speech was aimed to reassure the voters that Israel's security would be safe in Kadima's hands.

Iran's nuclear development program is "an existential risk to the entire world, not just Israel," Mofaz went on, and said that Ahmadinejad led "an extremist regime that denies the existence of Israel and calls for its obliteration."

"I believe everyone present here understands the extent to which the combination of an extremist regime with long-range ballistic capability, ongoing effort to obtain nuclear weapons and support in terror constitutes a danger not only to Israel, but to the entire world," Mofaz added.

Mofaz, formerly chief of staff of Israeli defense forces, told the annual Herzliya Conference on the Israel's national security that in addition to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Iran was directly sponsoring the Hizbollah terrorist organization to the tune of $100 million a year.

"Money is the fuel for terror," Mofaz said. "The financial assistance Iran transfers to Hizbollah totals some 100 million dollars each year. Some of these funds are funneled from Hizbollah to Palestinian terror groups. In addition, Iran is the main sponsor of the Islamic Jihad, which carried out most suicide attacks in Israel last year, including the attack in Tel Aviv's central bus station."

He added that Islamic Jihad cells in the West Bank received about 10 million dollars from Hizbullah in 2005, compared to just 5 million dollars in 2004.

In his combative speech, Mofaz described last week's Damascus meeting between Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad as "the summit of terror," and called the two leaders "representatives of the past."

But Mofaz made it clear that while Israel could act alone of it had to, the Jewish state was also wary of being isolated diplomatically, and would work hard to build regional alliances and cooperate with the international community.

"In the coming years we need to boost the strategic coordination with the U.S. and Europe, as well as with the peaceful countries Egypt and Jordan. Jihad draws near to us, and so we must combine efforts with the countries of the West," the defense minister said.

"Syria is under international pressure, while we have peace agreements with Arab states and the reality does not allow for the formation of an Arab coalition against Israel. The strength of the peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt contributes to stability in the region, which is why they must continue to be nurtured," Mofaz concluded.

When pressed on the details of military assistance, Cheney said: “Obviously, we would support our friends in Israel under those circumstances were they attacked.” Cheney warned against seeing US military intervention in Iraq as a precedent for possible action to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“It would be a mistake to go back and try to predict what might or might not happen, based on what happened in some other country in the past,” Cheney said in an interview with the Fox News Channel Neil Cavuto program.

“The fact of the matter is, it is a problem for the world if the Iranians have nuclear weapons, especially with a government headed up by the kind of individual that’s there today,” he said. “We are working aggressively to avoid having that situation arise.”

Earlier, the White House condemned a suicide bombing that wounded about 19 people in Tel Aviv, and called on the Palestinians to step up efforts to crack down on extremists who target Israel.

“We condemn this atrocious attack in the strongest possible terms. It has wounded tens of innocent civilians. We call upon the Palestinian Authority, again, to do everything it can to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure,” spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. “It is important that the Palestinian Authority ... act in accordance with their road map obligations to dismantle terror groups,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

Bin Laden says that the US should withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans have said they don't want the war to continue indefinitely. Why should we? The war is not benefiting us. It is killing us and our children. It is putting us all at the risk of further terrorist attacks. It is bleeding dry the government that is supposed to serve us, causing us to get less and less for our hard-earned tax dollars. The deficit that the federal government is running up will burden our children and grandchildren.

In short, we've won. Most Americans initially supported the "War on Terror" as a way of reducing the threat of terrorist attacks. They do not support it so that we could control the oil and other resources in the Arab world. The war's not about that, its supporters have (often angrily) maintained.

If we ended the war now, the president could focus on things he says he cares about: education, jobs, clean energy, the environment. He could re-direct toward these causes the billions of dollars (our dollars) that are being shoveled into the furnace of war. Call it a "Victory Dividend."

The president has been given a rare second chance: The Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over after 9/11, if the US would present evidence that bin Laden perpetrated those attacks. The president refused. More than four years later, all of the president's unmanned aircraft, Tomahawk missiles, 2000-lb bombs, and overworked and underpaid troops still can't catch bin Laden. We've killed many others, though, including tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. We've tortured. We've built secret prisons and run a gulag in Cuba. Yet after all this effort and all this money, bin Laden is still capable of attacking our homeland. We aren't even prepared: all sorts of soft spots remain vulnerable.

To refuse even to negotiate is irresponsible and reckless, and unrealistic. We cannot destroy an invisible enemy, no matter how many bombs we drop, no matter how many civil rights we erase. We will merely impoverish ourselves, and our brutality will only win the enemy more recruits--who will attack us again and again. A truce is what we need. It is better than anything we could have hoped for in the dark days after 9/11.

We should not let the president pull defeat and misery out of the jaws of victory.

BRIAN J. FOLEY is a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law. The views expressed are his own. He can be reached at brian_j_foley@yahoo.com.

Visit his website at www.brianjfoley.com.

“We consider any referral or report of Iran to the Security Council as the end of diplomacy,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told state television.

The administration’s success with Iran ends the diplomatic charade and paves the way for war. Now, UN Ambassador John Bolton will appear before the Security Council making spurious allegations of “noncompliance” that will rattle through the corporate media and prepare the world for unilateral military action.

The administration has no hope of securing the votes needed for sanctions or punitive action. The trip to the Security Council is purely a ploy to provide the cover of international legitimacy to another act of unprovoked aggression. The case has gone as far as it will go excluding the requisite “touched up” satellite photos and bogus allegations of unreliable dissidents.

We should now be focused on how Washington intends to carry out its war plans, since war appears to be inevitable.

Those who doubt that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team will attack Iran, while so conspicuously overextended in Iraq, are ignoring the subtleties of the administration’s Middle East strategy.

Bush has no intention of occupying Iran. Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. Ultimately, Washington will aim to replace the Mullahs with American-friendly clients who can police their own people and fabricate the appearance of representative government. But, that will have to wait. For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar. There have many fine articles written about the proposed “euro-based” bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback. The best of these are “Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar” by William R. Clark, and “The Proposed Oil Bourse” by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

The bottom line on the bourse is this; the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. It’s utterly worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros then the world’s central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral.

The Bush administration has no intention of allowing that to take place. In fact, as the tax-cuts and the budget deficits indicate, the Bush cabal fully intends to perpetuate the system that trades worthless dollars for valuable commodities, labor, and resources. As long as the oil market is married to the dollar, this system of global indentured servitude will continue.

Battle Plans

The Bush administration’s attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear weapons programs) and put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved.

Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein’s strategy in 1980 when he initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green-light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagan’s high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Khuzestan represents 90% of Iran’s oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currency’s dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Iran’s bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar will maintain its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency. As long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar. (In fact, the American war-machine and all its various appendages, from Guantanamo to Abrams Tanks, are paid for by the myriad nations who willingly hold reserves of American currency)

This extortion-scheme is typically referred to as the global economic system. In reality, it has nothing to do with either free markets or capitalism. That is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. This is the dollar-system; predicated entirely on the ongoing monopoly of the oil trade in dollars.

Invading Khuzestan

In a recent article by Zolton Grossman, “Khuzestan; the First Front in the War on Iran?”, Grossman cites the Beirut Daily Star which predicts that the “"first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply, forcing it to depend on its limited stocks."

This strategy has been called the “Khuzestan Gambit”, and we can expect that some variant of this plan will be executed following the aerial bombardment of Iranian military installations and weapons sites. If Iran retaliates, then there is every reason to believe that either the United States or Israel will respond with low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. In fact, the Pentagon may want to demonstrate its eagerness to use nuclear weapons do deter future adversaries and to maintain current levels of troop deployments without a draft.

Tonkin Bay Redux

On January 28, 2006, Iranian officials announced that they would “hand over evidence that proved British involvement in bombings in the southern city of Ahvaz earlier in the week” that killed eight civilians and wounded 46 others. This was just one of the many bombings, incitements, and demonstrations that have taken place in Khuzestan in the last year that suggest foreign intervention. The action is strikingly similar to the 2 British commandoes who were apprehended in Basra a few months ago dressed as Arabs with a truckload of explosives during the week of religious festival.

Coincidence?

Perhaps.

But, step by step, Iran is being set up for war. What difference does the provocation make? The determination to consolidate the oil reserves in the Caspian Basin was made more than a decade ago and is clearly articulated in the policy papers produced by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) The Bush administration is one small province away from realizing the its dream of controlling the world’s most valued resource. They won’t let that opportunity pass them by.

Jafarzadeh said he had been informed by sources inside the Iranian regime that Iran was constructing a top-secret tunnel as part of its nuclear weapons program.

"The secret tunnel carries the code name 'Hormuz Tunnel.' It is intended to further the regime's nuclear weapons research and development. The tunnel is located in the vicinity of the Mini-City (Shahrak-e Bazi), northeast Tehran," he said in a statement.

Jafarzadeh said the tunnel was located next to Tehran-Lashkarak Highway in the vicinity of Mini-City sited in the northeastern part of Tehran in a mountain slope. "This location is close to a residential area so that it might blend in with a community. That is, it would not appear to be a suspect nuclear site in such a place. This location might deceive inspectors who would not imagine a sensitive nuclear site to be located near a neighborhood," he said.

Jafarzadeh said the design for this tunnel was completed in 2004 and its construction began in March 2005. It was being built by the Hara Company which the IRGC used for secret military programs. "In the past, this same company has built other tunnels for the nuclear activities of Iran's Defense Ministry. This firm is experienced in building anti-radiation walls," he said.

Jafarzadeh said his sources were "confident that the tunnel is being built for nuclear weapons research and development."

The speakers, who all spoke in favour of the main Iranian opposition group, the People’s Mojahedin Organisation (MeK), said that the proscription of the group was the “most important impediment to achieving democracy in Iran” and called on the British government to remove the group’s name from the terrorist list. They described the MeK as a legitimate “resistance movement” fighting for freedom in Iran, adding the group’s original proscription was “politically motivated”.

“From the evidence that I have considered over the past three to four years, I am surprised that the [MeK] was ever proscribed, as there was no justification for such designation. There is an overwhelming case for the removal of the [MeK] from all terror lists”, Lord Slynn of Hadley, a former Judge in the European Court of Justice, told the conference.

A statement signed by more than 2,000 British lawyers calling for the removal of the name of the MeK from the list of terrorist groups was unveiled during the conference which took place in the House of Lords. The statement was addressed to the Home Secretary Charles Clarke.

Former Home Secretary Lord Waddington was among the panellists who defended the demand for the MeK’s de-proscription. “The radical make up of Iran’s present government and the threats from Iran’s president concerning Israel, as well as his vision of the Islamic world becoming one, under the leadership of Iran’s mullahs, and a final war between the Islamic world and the West, sends shudders down one’s spine. It is for this reason that I say that the struggle of the National Council of Resistance of Iran and [MeK] to bring about democracy in Iran is not only crucial, but their struggle will have serious repercussions for the rest of the world. I therefore urge our government to de-proscribe the [MeK]”.

A number of parliamentarians also spoke in favour of referring Tehran’s nuclear and human rights files to the United Nations Security Council.

Chair of the meeting Lord Corbett of Castle Vale said, “I congratulate Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia on their decision to refer the Iranian regime’s nuclear weapons programme to the UN Security Council. This step represents an important change in attitude towards the Iranian regime, which should also lead to a change in attitude towards the Iranian Resistance”.

Among the human rights defenders in the panel was Lord Joffe, former lawyer to South African icon Nelson Mandela. “We must recognise the Iranian Resistance and support the aspirations of the Iranian people. The right signal should be sent to the Iranian people by removing the unjust terror tag on their resistance movement, the [MeK]”.

Joffe said that he could not differentiate between the African National Congress struggling against Apartheid in South Africa and the MeK struggling against the theocracy in Iran. “There is therefore no justification for the international community to give less support to the [MeK] than it did to the ANC”.

Ipatov, who was head the Balakovo power plant for almost 20 years, said that currently, in view of the methods in place for controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons, “Iran is in no state to create a nuclear bomb secretly.”

The United States, along with the trio of European negotiating with Iran (Great Britain, France and Germany), are employing “double standards” in accusing Iran of attempting to create nuclear weapons, and this greatly complicates the situation in the country, he said.

If Iran’s nuclear file is referred to the UN Security Council, Russia and China, both veto-wielding permanent members, could block resolutions on Iran, the governor said.

Ipatov also said that although Iran had adopted an “unconstructive position,” he hoped Russia and China would be able to reach an agreement with the country on creating a peaceful joint project to enrich uranium for Iran on Russia’s territory.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said at a news conference that the Islamic republic would halt intrusive U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities and resume large-scale enrichment of uranium if it is taken before the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

Larijani also said Iran remains committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, despite calls from hard-line newspapers to withdraw from the agreement if the International Atomic Energy Agency reports Iran to the Security Council on Thursday, as expected.

Iran's main enrichment plant at Natanz "is ready for work," he said.

"We only need to notify the IAEA that we are resuming enrichment. When we do that is our call," Larijani said. If Iran is reported to the Security Council, we will do it quickly," he added.

Referring to the IAEA meeting, he added: "In case the issue is reported or referred to the Security Council, we will have to stop implementation of the Additional Protocol" — a procedure that allows IAEA inspectors to carry out intrusive searches of a country's nuclear facilities without warning.

"The result would be Iran's cooperating with the IAEA at a low level, which is against our wishes. All our suspensions on nuclear activities would be lifted," he said, meaning that Iran would feel free to enrich uranium without hindrance.

Iran insists its nuclear program is civilian only and has no other purpose than to generate power. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material needed to build a warhead.

In Vienna, Austria, a draft IAEA resolution requests agency director general Mohamed ElBaradei "to report to the Security Council" on steps Iran needs to take to dispel fears that it might want to make nuclear arms. It was being circulated among the 35-member IAEA board for comments before being submitted for approval at Thursday's board meeting, and a copy was made available to The Associated Press.

The development was a boost to Washington, the main proponent of bringing Iran before the Security Council.

The draft calls on Iran to:

— Re-establish a freeze on uranium enrichment and related activities.

— Consider whether to stop construction of a heavy water reactor that could be the source of plutonium for weapons.

— Formally ratify an agreement it has so far honored as if it were in force allowing the IAEA greater inspecting authority.

— Give the IAEA more power in its probe of Iran's nuclear program, including "access to individuals" for interviews, as well as to documentation on its black market nuclear purchases, equipment that could be used for nuclear and non-nuclear purposes and "certain military-owned workshops" where nuclear activities might be going on.

The draft also asks ElBaradei to "convey to the Security Council" his report to the next board session in March along with any resolution that meeting might approve.

"Iran's many failures of its obligations ... constitute noncompliance" with the nonproliferation treaty, the document said. Although the text is likely to undergo some changes before it is submitted for approval, the countries that authored the draft — Britain, France and Germany — were unlikely to agree to substantive modifications, according to a European diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing confidential strategy on Iran.

Ahmadinejad referred to Bush directly and the U.S.-led war in neighboring Iraq.

"Those whose hands are tainted with blood of nations and are involved in wars and oppression in any part of the world ... we, hopefully, in the near future will put you on trial in courts that will be set up by nations."

Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Mohammad Najjar also warned all countries against considering an attack on Iran's nuclear installations. "Any attack against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities will meet a swift and crushing response from the armed forces," Najjar said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

The comments came after Bush increased the pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, saying in his address Tuesday night that "the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." He said the United States "will continue to rally the world to confront these threats."

Bush also said Iran was "held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people" and must stop sponsoring terrorists in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon.

In Moscow, President Vladimir Putin spoke with Bush by telephone about Iran, the Kremlin said in a statement.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons on Wednesday it was crucial for the international community to "send a signal of strength" to Iran in the dispute.

"It is important that they understand ... that we are united in determining that they should not be able to carry on flouting their international obligations," he said.

The five permanent members of the Security Council agreed Tuesday that Iran should be hauled before the powerful body.

The top U.N. body has the power to impose economic and political sanctions, but none of those measures is immediately likely. Under the deal agreed to by Moscow and Beijing, the Security Council will likely await a new IAEA report at the next board meeting in March before deciding on substantive action, leaving more time for talks with Iran.

On Tuesday, the IAEA said Iran obtained documents and drawings on the black market that serve no other purpose than to make an atomic warhead. The findings were contained in a confidential report for presentation to the IAEA board and provided in full to AP.

A three-year IAEA inquiry has not found firm evidence to back assertions by the United States and others that Iran's nuclear activities are a cover for an arms program but has not been able to dismiss such suspicions either.

First mention of the documents linked to constructing a nuclear warhead was made last year in a longer IAEA report. At that time, the agency said only that they showed how to cast "enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms."

In the brief report obtained Tuesday, however, the agency said bluntly the 15 pages of text and drawings showing how to cast fissile uranium into metal were "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components."

The report said the documents were under agency seal, meaning that IAEA experts should be able to re-examine them, but Iran has declined to give the agency a copy.

Iran has claimed it did not ask for the documents but received them anyway as part of other black market purchases.

———

Associated Press Writer George Jahn contributed to this report from Vienna, Austria.

Representatives of five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States) and Germany gathered in London Monday and agreed to refer the Iranian nuclear file to the Security Council. They also decided that the UN Security Council would refrain from taking any potential measures against Iran before an official report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, in March.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday that the key agreement was that the UN Security Council would not yet make any decision on Iran, but would be kept informed about the issue after a two-day emergency IAEA session starting Thursday.

Several countries have accused Iran of pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program but the Islamic Republic insists that it only wants nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

The French Foreign Ministry said the talks with Iran were currently at a deadlock but a diplomatic way to resolve the nuclear problem was still possible if Tehran took steps to diffuse the crisis.

Meanwhile, Ali Larijani, Iran's top negotiator on the issue, said the referral of Iran's nuclear file to the UN Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic if it is found to be in breach of its international commitments, would mark "the end to diplomacy."

Larijani also said the decision to refer the Iranian nuclear file to the UN Security Council would force Tehran to abandon all nuclear moratoria.

He said the IAEA should continue control of Iran's nuclear facilities in compliance with the additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but should reduce the number of inspections.

Addressing the Board of Governors of the watchdog, the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency, Russian envoy Grigory Berdennikov reiterated President Vladimir Putin's proposal to build uranium enrichment facilities in Russia and other "nuclear club" nations, providing access on a non-discriminatory basis to countries looking for nuclear fuel for power production, under the IAEA's supervision.

"Once turned into practice, the Russian initiative will make it possible to provide for Iran's nuclear energy needs for years to come, given that a uranium enrichment moratorium is observed," Berdennikov said.

He added that the current IAEA session would hopefully yield a constructive decision, which would bring closer a resolution to the Iranian nuclear problem through negotiations and allow the IAEA's director general, Mohammed ElBaradei, to report about the progress at the next board session in March.

The IAEA board is considering Iran's referral to the UN Security Council, a U.S.-led move backed by the other Western nations and Israel that suspect Iran of pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program. The Council has the power to impose sanctions on Iran if it is found to be in breach of its international commitments.

Earlier, the U.S., the European trio of Britain, France and Germany, and Russia and China met in Brussels and decided in favor of referring Iran to the UN, though only in March at the next scheduled session of the IAEA.

In response to this decision, Tehran said it would proceed with uranium enrichment if it were referred to the UN Security Council.