The United States is pushing the UN to warn Iran it could "face consequences" for refusing to stop the programme.

In a harsh statement, Iran said the US was "susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the US wishes to choose, let the ball roll."

The UN Security Council could begin talks on Iran as soon as next week.

The council has the power to impose sanctions, but it is not clear that all its key members would back punitive measures.

Iran remains defiant, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying the country would not "submit to bullying".

Javad Vaidi, Iran's top delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also suggested the country could consider cutting oil exports, though he said it would not do so yet.

Iran is the world's fourth largest oil exporter. Its economy relies heavily on selling oil.

Offer rejected

The flurry of public statements on Iran came as the IAEA's head, Mohamed ElBaradei, delivered a long-awaited report into Tehran's nuclear programme.

It said the UN nuclear watchdog could not confirm Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons.

The US opposes allowing Iran to enrich any uranium, and Russia's foreign minister also rejected an Iranian compromise proposal on Wednesday.

Iran's diplomatic escalator

In an effort to head off Security Council intervention, Iran had suggested last week it might be allowed to enrich only small quantities of uranium for research purposes while importing most of its nuclear fuel from Russia.

But on a visit to Washington, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow's proposal for Iran to enrich uranium on Russian territory depended on Iran's full compliance with international demands.

The IAEA wants Iran to suspend uranium enrichment altogether.

Western powers believe Iran wants to develop nuclear arms, a claim it denies.

Tehran says it wants to develop its nuclear sector only to produce energy for civilian purposes.

Three years of negotiations between Iran and the EU have brought no significant result, and Iran resumed enrichment in January after a two-year hiatus.

Sources now say the UN Security Council could begin discussing Iran as soon as next week.

The council's likely first step would be to issue a demand that Iran stop nuclear activities by a certain deadline.

It might then issue a further warning before beginning to consider sanctions.

Compensation appeal

President Ahmadinejad gave a defiant speech to supporters as the IAEA was meeting in Vienna.

"If we put up a firm resistance, they will be defeated and humiliated by the Iranian nation's will," he said.

"The world must know that if anyone tries to violate the Iranian nation's rights, the Iranian nation will leave the blot of shame of regret on their forehead."

A day earlier he called for compensation for Iran's decision to halt its nuclear research programme for two years - without noting the decision was Tehran's own.

Iran had suggested it might be allowed to enrich small quantities of uranium for research purposes while importing most of its nuclear fuel from Russia.

However, the US opposes allowing Iran to enrich any uranium.

Speaking in Washington, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also rejected a deal.

Mr Lavrov said Moscow's proposal for Iran to enrich uranium on Russian territory depended on Iran's full compliance with the requirements of the UN nuclear agency.

The International Atomic Energy Agency wants Iran to suspend uranium enrichment altogether. Its board is currently meeting in Vienna to consider Iran's case.

It voted last month to report Iran to the UN Security Council for failing to disclose details of its nuclear activities.

'Proliferation risk'

Last week, Tehran suggested a compromise deal in which it would be allowed to enrich a small amount of uranium for research purposes, in return for accepting the Russian proposal.

However, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the only deal she backed was the original Russian proposal.

Iran's diplomatic escalator

"This is not an issue of Iran's right to civil nuclear power, it is that there needs to be a way to provide for civil nuclear power that does not have a proliferation risk," she said after talks with Mr Lavrov.

Mr Lavrov said there was "no compromise" to the Russian proposal.

Western powers believe Iran wants to develop nuclear arms, a claim it denies.

Tehran insists it has the right to develop its nuclear sector to produce energy for civilian purposes.

Three years of negotiations between Iran and the EU have brought no significant result, and Iran resumed enrichment in January after a two-year hiatus.

Compensation appeal

Earlier, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the West should compensate Iran for its suspension of nuclear research, as a way of building trust.

However, he failed to mention that Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment two years ago - the basis of his call for compensation - had been voluntary, the BBC's Frances Harrison reports from Tehran.

A senior military commander warned on Monday that the Iranian military would turn the country into a killing field for any enemy aggressor.

There is now more talk from Iranian officials of preparing people psychologically for confrontation with the West, our correspondent says.

But Iranian television has accused Western media of exaggerating the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, our correspondent says.

Bush Administration officials are readying a new intelligence briefing for council members on Tehran's weapons programs.

By ELAINE SHANNON

As the U.N. security Council prepares to debate Iran's nuclear ambitions-perhaps as early as next week-Bush Administration officials are readying a new intelligence briefing for council members on Tehran's weapons programs. It will rely mainly on circumstantial evidence, much of it from documents found on a laptop purportedly purloined from an Iranian nuclear engineer and obtained by the CIA in 2004. U.S. officials insist the material is strong but concede they have no smoking gun.

They do, however, have diagrams that they believe show components of a nuclear bomb. According to a Western diplomat familiar with the U.S. intel brief, a Farsi-language PowerPoint presentation on the laptop has "catchy graphics," including diagrams of a hollow metallic sphere 2 ft. in diameter and weighing about 440 lbs. Other documents show a sphere-shaped array of tiny detonators. No file specifically refers to a nuclear bomb, but U.S. officials say the design of the sphere-an outer shell studded with small chemical-explosive charges meant to detonate inward, which would squeeze an inner core of material into a critical mass-is akin to that of classic devices like Fat Man, the atom bomb dropped on Nagasaki during World War II. "Because of the size and weight and the power source going into it and height-of-burst requirements," says the diplomat, Western experts have concluded that the design "is only intended to contain a nuclear weapon. There's no other munition which would work." A report issued last week by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says Iranian officials have dismissed a number of the laptop documents as fabricated.

Intelligence of this kind helped secure the backing of Russia and China in last month's IAEA vote to refer Iran to the Security Council. Western officials hope the new briefing will win council support for further action; most of them see no viable alternative to U.N. efforts to try to gain Iran's compliance. As a Western diplomat puts it, "There's a military option-but not a military solution."

The United States, Britain, France and Germany are seeking a referral to the UN Security Council at a meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

Washington believes the Iranian nuclear programme is hiding efforts to make an atomic bomb. Tehran insists its research is peaceful.

"The UN Security Council is the right place to intensify the international debate on Iran's nuclear ambitions," said Burns.

"We plan a concerted approach at the UN that gradually escalates pressure on Iran. We will shine a bright spotlight on Iran's nuclear programme. We intend to participate in a vigorous international debate about Iran's nuclear ambitions."

Burns said the Security Council would make a strong statement about Iran and that if the Iranian government does not "accede to the wishes of the international community, then of course we would have to look at possible targeted sanctions, which a number of countries are already beginning to explore."

He said any sanctions "will be specifically targeted to pressure the regime and Iran's nuclear and missile programmes, rather than hurting the great majority of innocent Iranians."

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," he said.

Cheney was addresing 5,000 pro-Israel activists from all 50 states Monday who gathered in Washington, D.C., to attend the two-day Annual Policy Conference of AIPAC, America's pro-Israel lobbyist organization, which began Sunday. The focus of the conference was "the urgency of stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons and isolating the Palestinian government, which is now controlled by the terrorist group Hamas." Additionally, AIPAC delegates had 400 lobbying appointments with members of the House and Senate who were in attendance.

The American vice president joined U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, in condemning the new Hamas-led Palestinian government. Bolton too echoed the vice-president's "unshakeable" commitment to the U.S.-Israel alliance.

"While Mr. Ahmadi-nejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has clearly failed his lessons in history, indulge me a moment if you will to offer him up at least one lesson on current events: our commitment to Israel's security and the alliance between the United States and Israel are unshakeable," Bolton told the conference.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, the current Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.[1]

In August 1974, the current Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld served as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975)[2] and was the Ford Administration's Secretary of Defense from 1975–1977.

The current President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under President Gerald Ford.[3] Wolfowitz is considered as a prominent architect of the Bush Doctrine, which has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States.

According to Washington Post Staff Writer Dafna Linzer, "Ford's team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium – the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weopons builders."[4]

What the current Bush Administration is asserting, particularly through its news agency Fox News, or as I like to call it, the Fascist Opinion X-change, is that it needs to prevent Iran from achieving the exact same nuclear capabilities that President Ford and his key appointees, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were encouraging Iran to accomplish 30 years ago. Iran, a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, is guaranteed the right to develop peaceful nuclear power programs – regardless of whether the United States approves or disapproves the politics or political leadership of that country; a point that Iran has repeated over and over again. For 30 years, Iran has proclaimed that it needs nuclear power since its oil and gas supplies are limited, just like the United States, and therefore has the legal right to produce and operate nuclear power plants. Thirty years ago, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld agreed. Today, Cheney and Rumsfeld appear to be crawling out of their skins with uncontrollable militarized lust for control of Iranian oil fields via a U.S. occupied, Iran. The NEO-CON war drumbeaters have already devised their plans for the liberation of the people again, this time Iranian people, and making things all better, just like they have done in Iraq. Scary stuff, but it is true. In preparation, the Bush Administration has primed the mainstream media so effectively that 8 out of 10 Americans believe Iran poises an immediate nuclear threat to the United States. The President's recent and risky travel to regional nuclear powers, Pakistan and India, no doubt also served as a strategic warning to those countries to prepare for the certain public backlash to be expected once the U.S. or Israel begins to drop bombs on Iran.

It is also worth noting that in 2000, the World Bank resumed making loans to Iran. As of June 30, 2004, the World Bank as made 51 loans valued at $2.6 billion to Iran. The World Bank gets its funds from the International Monetary Fund, which in turn, gets its money from member nation dues / contributions. The United States is required to contribute $37.2 billion per year into the IMF. The atrocious Federal Reserve Banking Cartel orchestrated this money scheme so that it can continue to print and loan astronomical numbers of debt notes. If the American people understood that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Congress have been funding many activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, most would be skeptical of the federal government's current claim that Iran's 30 year old, U.S. sanctioned, nuclear program is somehow now an immediate threat to the security of the United States. The IMF and the World Bank create just enough degrees of separation to shield the government from the people recognizing that the federal government has fed the dog well that it now claims will bite if we do not 'put it down' with a pre-emptive strike.

With Wolfowitz at the helm of the World Bank, one has to wonder if once again the Federal Reserve has positioned itself to fund both sides of a warring conflict. One thing is certain; loaning money to fund both sides of a war is a perfected craft of the member banks of the Federal Reserve, which is interested only in loan collateral and interest payments. Patriotism is not part of the equation. What is most disturbing about the relationship between the Fed, IMF, and World Bank is that the $37.2 billion the U.S. is obligated to pay to the IMF annually, is actually secured by the American taxpayer. We the People, and the ability of the U.S. Congress to confiscate our wealth through that unconstitutional apparatus referred to as a federal income tax, makes loaning money to the Islamic Republic of Iran easy because if Iran defaults on its World Bank loans, the U.S. portions of the loans work their way back to the lender of last resort, which is the U.S. Congress. When the U.S. Congress responds to failed loans and failed banking institutions, they assume responsibility for the loan amount, and pass the burden of repayment onto the American people.

Finally, but very much part of the U.S. government's charade aimed at deceiving the American people into believing that the U.S. has played no part in the development of Iran or its nuclear power programs, is the absolute economic threat that Iran poses to the global value of the U.S. dollar. Unless the U.S. intervenes, on March 20, 2006 the world will have the option of purchasing oil with euros instead of dollars through the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse. The Iran Oil Bourse will be the third exchange in which global oil transactions will be executed. While financial analysts debate whether such an exchange operating solely in euros will have the potential to collapse the U.S. economy, the complete silence of the mainstream media regarding this most important untold story can be interpreted as a sign that this suggested economic threat is real. As the Bush Administration has proven itself to be the most dishonest, secretive presidency in the history of the United States, it has repeatedly demonstrated that the truth about its motives and agendas can only be found in what is not being reported to the American people. And if the Iran nuclear threat rhetoric is the firewall that the U.S. government is hiding the U.S. dollar global supremacy behind, than any military action in Iran will be solely on behalf of the member banks of the Federal Reserve – at the expense of American sons and daughters serving in the U.S. military and at the burden of the U.S. taxpayer who is already indebted to the federal government to the tune of $28 thousand, which is each and every American's current share of the Federal Reserve / U.S. Congress banking cartel produced national debt - $28,000 and growing faster than ever!

Here's a patriotic challenge and very American gut check for your consideration: Next time you hold your children and / or grandchildren, look them in the eye and explain to them how they are, right at this very moment, indebted to the federal government of the United States of America, to the tune of $28,000, and then ask yourself how you allowed it to happen. Sobering fact that feels better to ignore, does it not? But hell, we're spreading democracy, right? I don't think so, and hopefully soon, neither will you.

The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.

The White House dismissed the rhetoric out of Tehran.

"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to hurricane-affected states in the Gulf Coast. "And the international community has spelled out to Iran what it needs to do."

America's ambassador to the United Nations - and the chief architect of U.S. policy in the Security Council once it takes up the Iran issue - said Iran's comments reflected the menace it poses.

"Their threats show why leaving a country like that with a nuclear weapon is so dangerous," he told The Associated Press in a phone call from Washington.

He classified the Iranian comments as "reflecting their determination to acquire weapons."

"The submarine is fully adapted to the Persian Gulf," he said, adding that the Iranian navy was pursuing a policy of deterrence in the strategic waters -- home to the world's largest oil reserves.

No further details on the submarine were given.

Last May state media announced Iran had begun producing its first locally-built submarine. At the time it was called the Ghadir, named after a Shiite religious holiday.

According to foreign military experts, Iran's inventory of submarines patrolling Gulf waters includes up to six Russian-built SSK or SSI Kilo class diesel submarines.

In recent months Israel has been dangling the threat of pre-emptive action to stop Iran's disputed nuclear energy programme -- seen as a mask for weapons development.

The United States has also refused to rule out military action against Iran.

George Bush's explanation of his volte-face over a proposed Iran-India gas pipeline project appeared slightly disingenuous. "Our beef with Iran is not the pipeline," the US president said on Saturday after withdrawing previous objections and giving the go-ahead to Washington's new friends in Delhi. "Our beef with Iran is the fact that they want to develop a nuclear weapon."

But US fears about Iranian nukes, discussed in Vienna yesterday, are hardly the whole story. Washington is compiling a dossier of grievances against Tehran similar in scope and seriousness to the pre-war charge-sheet against Iraq. Other complaints include Iranian meddling in Iraq, support for Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon, and human rights abuses.

Article continues
Mr Bush regularly urges Iranians to seize the "freedom they seek and deserve". In Tehran's ministries, that sounds like a call for regime change. He has ignored past Iranian offers of talks and tightened US economic sanctions.

Official Washington's quickening drumbeat of hostility is beginning to recall political offensives against Libya's Muammar Gadafy, Panama's Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein, which all ended in violence. Rightwing American media are urging action, deeming Iran "an intolerable threat" that is the "central crisis of the Bush presidency".

As was the case with Iraq, administration tub-thumping is influencing public opinion - notwithstanding subsequent debunking of many of its Iraq claims. Polls suggest many Americans are now convinced Iran is the new public enemy No 1. Forty-seven percent told Zogby International they favoured military action to halt its nuclear activities.

While hopes of avoiding confrontation are not yet dead, warnings by John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, that Iran could face "painful consequences" over its nuclear activities were a reminder of Mr Bush's repeated refusals to eschew armed force. Iranian officials believe the US is determined to undermine and if possible overthrow Iran's theocracy and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government - regardless of whether a nuclear compromise is reached. That helps explain Tehran's hardline negotiating stance.

They cite a US decision to spend $75m (£43m) on funding potential Iranian opposition forces, including NGOs, trade unions and human rights groups, and local language propaganda broadcasts - tactics pioneered in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine. Iran accuses the US of stirring discontent among its Kurdish, Baluch and Azeri minorities, suspicions fed by a US marine corps investigation to gauge the strength of opposition to the central government among non-Persian groups. Tehran also believes the US is using the People's Mujahideen, an anti-regime group once backed by Saddam and blamed for many terrorist attacks, for intelligence-gathering and destabilisation.

It recently demanded British troops quit Basra after linking them to unrest among Arab Iranians in Khuzestan, abutting south-east Iraq. Britain has rejected the claims.

The "EU three" - Britain, France and Germany - remain focused on the nuclear controversy rather than broader Iran-related issues. A senior British official said they would, if necessary, support "graduated" pressure on Iran via the UN security council, "possibly leading to trade restrictions or more likely, travel and financial sanctions on individuals". But the official said the Europeans "do not have a clear view of what we will do at a later stage" should Iran refuse to bend.

In the absence of a Vienna breakthrough, this lack of an agreed strategy may encourage US hawks, egged on by Israel, to seize the initiative - even at the risk of an Iraq-style split with Europe. They have been biding their time for three years. Now they want action. For starters, Mr Bolton is expected to seek a 30-day UN deadline for Iran to back down or face counter-measures.

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an oblique reference to the operation on Sunday in his video address to the annual AIPAC conference in the U.S. He warned that Israel would not be able to stop the Iranians on its own, adding his hope that the international community, led by the U.S., would impose sanctions on Iran. He said the country is a threat to the modern world.

Defense Minister Sha'ul Mofaz also spoke on Sunday about the issue. He said that Iran poses a major threat to Israel, and that the verbal hostility coming out of Tehran is something that needs to be closely monitored.

He added that Iran's nuclear program is "a substantial and existential threat to the State of Israel". He also warned campaigning parties and politicians not to manipulate Israel's security situation for the election, saying the situation is a very serious matter.

The Bush administration, meanwhile, is placing more pressure on the United Nations as it becomes increasingly concerned with its delay in dealing with the matter. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton said bluntly, "The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve."

Iran threatened Sunday to resume its large-scale uranium enrichment if the matter is referred to the UN Security Council. The International Atomic Energy Agency was to meet on Monday to decide whether to refer the issue of Iran's nuclear development program to the Council.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi criticized the U.S. for what he called a "double standard" in its dealings over nuclear development, citing a recent deal with India as proof. "The United States' approach is a form of double standards," he charged at a news conference. "It signed a contract with a country that was not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That is objectionable," he complained.

"We didn't see a single Iraqi MiG (fighter), and not a single surface-to-air missile was fired," Raz says. "The whole operation was just too perfect."

The Osiraq mission is getting renewed attention in Israel now that the United Nations Security Council is likely to take up the issue of Iran's nuclear program, setting up a possible showdown between Iran and the West.

When asked in December how far he would go to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, the Israeli military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, said "2,000 kilometers" - the approximate flying distance between Israel and key Iranian nuclear sites.

Halutz says diplomatic efforts won't thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. "I believe that the political means that are used by the Europeans and the U.S. to convince the Iranians to stop the project will not succeed."

However, military observers say a quick, Osiraq-style Israeli strike against Iranian targets is unlikely. "We'll never see ... eight planes swooping down on Iran," Raz says. "It could never happen."

Iran and other countries in the Middle East learned lessons from the 1981 airstrike. A now-declassified CIA assessment written shortly after the attack said it would spur countries in the region to strengthen their defenses.

"The most essential condition - surprise - is lacking," Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld says. "The Iranian sites are numerous, well-camouflaged and hardened. All this means an attack will be much more difficult to carry out."

Van Creveld says destroying some of Iran's critical infrastructure would deal a setback to its nuclear program but not destroy it. Also, he says, planning even a limited strike would require extensive intelligence.

"All the options are bad," says Raz, who retired from Israel's air force and is a defense contractor. "We must choose the least worst."

In 1981, Iraq's nuclear program was concentrated at the Osiraq site and was not well protected.

The eight F-16s sent to destroy the site dropped 16 2,000-pound bombs - 14 of which made direct hits. "It was overkill," Raz says. "We could have done it with half. But I wanted all eight planes because I wasn't sure all of them would make it there."

Six months before the mission, Raz ordered a young captain, 26-year-old Ilan Ramon, to assess the raid's chances of success. Raz says Ramon told him with a smile, "Well, we can definitely get there, but we'll have to ditch somewhere over Jordan on the way home."

According to Ramon's calculations, the only way the fighters could conserve enough fuel to make it to Osiraq and back to Israel was to jettison their external fuel tanks as soon as they were used up. But if a released tank so much as nicked one of the bombs mounted under the planes, the jet could explode.

The F-16's training manual forbade such a move, but the Israelis felt they had no choice. The plan devised by Ramon - who would eventually become an astronaut and would die in the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster - worked.

Raz had other worries. He was leading a mission that many of Israel's leaders, including Ezer Weizman, who would later become president, privately opposed. They warned it would either fail or ignite another Middle East war.

The mission became even more important in hindsight, Raz says. Had it failed, Iraq might have been able to use nuclear-tipped Scud missiles against Israel or American forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he says.

The U.S.-made aircraft were to arrive at Osiraq with the sun setting behind them to make it harder for Iraqi anti-aircraft gunners to see them.

As they approached the target, the jets skimmed along at less than 100 feet above the ground. The planes pulled up, then dived, releasing their bombs and reducing the facility to rubble.

"I am not a believer," Raz says. "But it seems like the mission was protected by the hand of God."