"(The Iranians) must know everything is on the table and they must understand what that means," U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told a group of visiting British politicians last week. "We can hit different points along the line. You only have to take out one part of their nuclear operation to take the whole thing down." In other words, he was calmly proposing an illegal attack on a sovereign state, possibly involving nuclear weapons.

Bolton knew his words would be leaked, so maybe it was just deliberate posturing to raise the pressure on Iran. But on Sunday, addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, Bolton repeated the threat: "The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve… We must be prepared to rely on comprehensive solutions and use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat…" He may really mean it -- and no one in the White House has told him to shut up.

With the U.S. army already mired in Iraq, the Bush administration lacks the ground strength to invade Iran, a far larger country. The National Security Strategy statement of September 2002 declared a new doctrine of "preemptive" wars in which the U.S. would launch unprovoked attacks against countries that it feared might hurt it in the future, and in January 2003 that doctrine was elaborated into the military strategy of "full spectrum global strike."

The "full spectrum" referred specifically to the use of nuclear weapons to destroy hardened targets that ordinary weapons cannot reach. Earth-penetrating "mini-nukes" were an integral part of Conplan 8022-02, a presidential directive signed by Bush at the same time that covered attacks on countries allegedly posing an "imminent" nuclear threat in which no American ground troops would be used. Indeed, the responsibility for carrying out Conplan 8022 was given to Strategic Command (Stratcom) in Omaha, a military command that had previously dealt only with nuclear weapons.

Last May, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" putting Stratcom on high military readiness 24 hours a day. Logic says there is no "imminent" danger of Iranian nuclear weapons: last year's U.S. National Intelligence Estimate put the time needed for Iran to develop such weapons at ten years. But experience says that this administration can talk itself into a "preemptive" attack on a country that really does not pose any threat at all.

So what happens if they talk themselves into unleashing Conplan 8022 on Iran? Thousands of people would die, of course, and the surviving 70 million Iranians would be very cross, but how could they strike back at the United States? Iran has no nuclear weapons, no weapons of any sort that could reach America. Given the huge American technological lead, it can't even do much damage to U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region. But it does have two powerful weapons: its Shia faith, and oil.

Iran is currently playing a long game in Iraq, encouraging the Shia religious parties to cooperate with the American political project so that a Shia-dominated government in Baghdad will turn Iraq into a reliable ally of Iran once the Americans go home. But if Tehran encouraged the Shia militias to attack American troops in Iraq, U.S. casualties would soar. The whole American position there could become untenable in months.

Iran would probably not try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the choke-point through which most of the Persian Gulf's oil exports pass, for U.S. forces could easily dominate or even seize the sparsely populated Iranian coast on the north side. But it would certainly halt its own oil exports, currently close to 4 million barrels a day, and in today's tight oil market that would likely drive the oil price up to $130-$150 a barrel. Moreover, Tehran could keep the exports turned off for months, since recent oil prices, already high by historical standards, have enabled it to build up a large cash reserve. (Iran earned $45 billion from oil exports last year, twice the average in 2001-03.)

So a "preemptive" American attack on Iran would ignite a general insurrection against the American presence in Shia-dominated areas of Iraq and trigger a global economic crisis. The use of nuclear weapons would cross a firebreak that the world has maintained ever since 1945, and convince most other great powers that the United States is a rogue state that must be contained. All this to deal with a threat that is no more real or "imminent" than the one posed by Iraq in 2003.

No American policy-maker in his right mind would contemplate unleashing such a disaster for so little reason. Unfortunately, that does not guarantee that it won't happen.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2006

She said: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran, whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East we would like to see developed."

Ms Rice attacked Iran's "terrible human rights record" and urged Congress to approve £43m in extra funds in a "cultural outreach" scheme to normal Iranian citizens.

She said the US had no problem with Iran's citizens, but opposed the government.

Earlier today, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the west would "suffer more" than his country if it keeps trying to stop Tehran developing nuclear technology.

In a speech, he told a crowd of supporters that Iran would not be "bullied" by the West into abandoning its research.

The comments were his first public reaction since the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) decision in Vienna yesterday to formally refer the long-running nuclear row to the UN security council.

Mr Ahmadinejad rejected the IAEA decision and called it "unjust".

"The people of Iran will not accept coercion and unjust decisions by international organisations ... the era of bullying and brutality is over," he said.

"They [western countries] know that they are not capable of inflicting the slightest blow on the Iranian nation because they need the Iranian nation ... they will suffer more and they are vulnerable."

His comments were echoed by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the ultimate decision-maker in the Islamic state.

Ayatollah Khamenei urged officials not to cave in to pressure from the west and said the security council referral was part of a psychological war against the Iranian clerical regime orchestrated by Washington.

Tensions have been escalating in recent days over the nuclear row, which is expected to be discussed next week by the security council.

On Tuesday, US vice-president Dick Cheney threatened Iran with "meaningful consequences" if it pushed ahead with its nuclear research, which Tehran insists is for civilian energy, not weapons.

Yesterday, Javad Vaeidi, the deputy head of Iran's national security council, said the US had the power to cause "harm and pain", but was also "susceptible to harm and pain".

This morning, newspapers in Tehran published news of the IAEA's decision on their front pages.

One of the papers, the official Persian-language daily Iran, had an opinion piece in which it said the referral to the security council was "a message of weakness and failure" by the IAEA.

George Bush, the US president, has said that Iran will not be allowed to get the nuclear bomb.

The US has demanded that Iran stop developing nuclear fuel, which could be processed further to create weapons.

The US, as well as the UK, France and Germany, which have been negotiating with Iran on behalf of Europe, want Iran to give up uranium enrichment altogether.

Iran has rejected the demand, saying it will never give up its right under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.

Iranian officials have failed to agree to a Russian compromise offer to undertake enrichment for Iran.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA director general, sent a report on Iran to the council yesterday after presenting it to the 35-nation IAEA board of governors.

But three stand out: three contracts, for a total of $254,437, for unspecified "intelligence services."

Those three contracts were awarded to Mitchell Wade's MZM, Inc.

The first contract was signed only about eight weeks after Wade set up the Iranian Democratization Foundation (IDF). The first was on June 16th, the second on July 23rd and the third on September 30th.

We're not the first ones to report these contracts for "intelligence services." On June 28th, 2005, just as the Duke Cunningham scandal was getting underway, the Washington Post wrote ...

Government procurement records show that MZM, which Wade started in 1993, did not report any revenue from prime contract awards until 2003. Most of its revenue has come from the agreement the Pentagon just cut off. But over the past three years it was also awarded several contracts, worth more than $600,000, by the Executive Office of the President. They include a $140,000 deal for office furniture in 2002 and several for unspecified "intelligence services." (italics added)

But given all that's transpired, this odd fact seems worthy of more scrutiny, especially since Wade was setting up shop in the Iran regime-change game right around then.

Jut how many contracts does the White House give out for "intelligence services"?

And were these three tied to Wade's just-discovered work on the Iran regime-change front?

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee that the Security Council would begin debate on Iran next Monday and Tuesday, and gradually escalate pressure if Tehran refused to halt uranium enrichment activities.

But Rep Thomas Lantos of California, the panel's senior Democrat, insisted that "Iran's quest for nuclear arms requires us to do two things: squeeze Iran's economy as much as possible and do so without delay".

He said that the committee next week would consider a bill signed by more than 300 lawmakers requiring US sanctions on any company or nation investing more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector.

It would also require US-based pension funds to disclose Iran-related investments. Washington already has long-standing sanctions prohibiting American companies or individuals from doing business with the Islamic republic.

Meanwhile, the White House rejected as provocative Iran's warning that the United States could feel "harm and pain" if the Security Council took up the issue of Tehran's nuclear research. "Provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world," spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters travelling with President George W Bush in New Orleans.

Burns said that the administration could support legislation imposing sanctions on foreign firms, which would replace the expiring Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, but it should be modified to give Bush greater flexibility. After a year of intensive diplomacy, the five major nuclear powers – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China – are united in agreeing that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons" but the proposed law could blow the coalition apart, he warned.

In recent years, foreign firms have signed more than $100 billion in energy-related deals with Iran but US presidents sidestepped imposing sanctions to avoid a diplomatic or trade row, especially with European allies, lawmakers said. Burns said that the Security Council would start with a statement demanding that Iran halt uranium enrichment and cooperate with the international community.

In a year or so the United Nations will be just another American NGO doing the bidding of the world's multinational corporations. That's good news for Bolton and his friends at the American Enterprise Institute, the ideological headquarters for America's ongoing incursions into the third world.

By enlisting Secretary General Kofi Annan, Bolton has advanced an agenda for "radical reform" including "more financial oversight, simplified hiring and reporting procedures, staff buyouts, and a modern information system." (Al Jazeera) The intention is to staff the organization with like-minded people from the business and banking establishment who will cater to the needs of their corporate overlords. This will allow funds to be siphoned off to the usual suspects (Halliburton, Bechtel, Flour etc) who continue their relentless colonization of the developing world.

The New York Times has played a pivotal role in hyping the reform-project. Staff writer, Warren Hoge, has done most of the heavy-lifting (although he was assisted at one point by NYT icon Judith Miller) carping about the fictitious "oil for food" scandal and extolling Bolton's ax-wielding activities. The Times critique of UN failures reads like an extended passage from the "Rubaiyat"; great reading, but mostly hot air.

Kofi Annan, however, agrees with Bolton about the need for change:

"Just as this building after 50 years of ad hoc repair and maintenance, now needs to be fully refurbished from top to bottom, so too our organization, after decades of piecemeal reform, now needs a thorough strategic refit."

So, what's the bottom line?

American plutocrats and corporate big-wigs are looking for an organization that is more responsive to their needs. The UN provides the legitimacy they need as cover for their "humanitarian interventions" (re: wars of aggression) and reconstruction projects, (Sluicing money to the major corporate players) but it requires fine-tuning to better serve their interests.

Bolton has recommended structural changes to the Human Rights Commission so the UN can beat up on the weaker nations while exempting the US from charges of flagrant and systematic prisoner abuse or war crimes. The broader objective is to transform the United Nations into a rubber stamp for American foreign policy.

To that end, Bolton is pushing for a new post of "Chief Operating Officer". This job will be filled by a political-loyalist who can override the decisions of the Secretary-General and ensure that the organization makes prudent, business-friendly decisions. Right now, it looks like the job will go to Mark Malloch Brown, who did a stint with the World Bank; proving he has the proper pedigree for his next assignment.

It appears that the job of Secretary-General will become a meaningless ceremonial role much like that of the President of the United States. Undoubtedly, it will be filled by someone who is capable of expressing great warmth and humanity while carrying out the imperial-mandate.

Does the name Bill Clinton come to mind?

Bolton has worked hard to rebuild the UN from the ground up ignoring the criticism of those who don't share his vision of a less democratic institution. Dismissing their ridicule as sour-grapes, Bolton said triumphantly, "This work is too important to be caught up in procedural wrangles in this body."

Bolton obviously prefers his "one man" version of democracy.

He kept mentioning twice that Reporters without borders, like the Bush administration, is rejecting the UN project for the creation of a new human right Council, because it is too lax with repressive countries. As if that was not enough, he underlined that both the Washington Post and the New York Times support the administration,"not something that happens every day, that's for sure". He had a point, obviously, since the project currently submitted by the General Assembly's chairman is clearly not a satisfactory one.

When asked about nuclear cooperation with India though, Bolton refrained to mention today's New York Times editorial. Actually, i find his explanation quite stunning when it came to compare Iran and India nuclear programs. "India never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It never undertook the obligation not to develop nuclear weapons. That's a completely different circumstance than Iran that's been violating the NPT and lying about it for close to 20 years". Hmm...in other words, better never sign any international treaty in order not to have to violate them.

Analysts blame the surge on a confluence of factors: the proposed takeover of US ports operations by a Dubai firm (now abandoned); the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories; and, above all, the riotous protests across the Muslim world against Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. "The coverage of the controversy over the cartoons showed that sort of violent extremist in a way that a lot of Americans found troubling," said Carroll Dougherty of the Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press.

American attitudes towards Islam were not out of step with Europe, Mr Dougherty said, adding that there was more tolerance in the US towards the use of headscarves than in countries such as Germany or France, where there is strong support for a ban.

But nearly half of Americans, 46%, said they held unfavourable attitudes towards Islam - compared with 24% in January 2002. The Post quoted analysts as saying that the demonisation of Islam by politicians and the media during the past four years had led to an erosion of tolerance.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11 2001, George Bush made a number of statements disassociating Islam and the general Arab and Muslim population in America from al-Qaida. He also visited a mosque, a symbolic gesture that helped build a more positive image of Islam.

"It seems counter-intuitive, but from the president on down there was a very strong message from Washington that this was not representative of Islam," Mr Dougherty said. "In the intervening years there has been an absence of this sort of positive message."

James Zogby, president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute, told the Post he was not surprised by the poll's results. Politicians, authors and media commentators have demonised the Arab world since 2001, he said.

"The intensity has not abated and remains a vein that's very near the surface, ready to be tapped at any moment," Mr Zogby said. "Members of Congress have been exploiting this over the ports issue. Radio commentators have been talking about it non-stop."

Referring to a recent meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, Douste-Blazy said "we made proposals, the hand (of compromise) is extended, negotiations are possible."

On Wednesday, Douste-Blazy criticized Iran for spurning chances to find a solution to the crisis and said France would assume its responsibilities as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

Most diplomats expect the 15-national Security Council, which can impose sanctions, to issue a statement first urging Iran to comply with resolutions by the International Atomic Energy Agency's board (IAEA) that it halt all uranium enrichment activities.

Iran, which concealed its nuclear activities from the IAEA for 18 years, denies it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb and says it is being singled out unfairly over its nuclear activities compared to India, Pakistan and Israel.

Tehran says it wants civilian nuclear power to meet the needs of its booming economy.

Arab countries treat Iran as a Muslim brother state, the official said, and added that Arab states desired good relations with members of the Islamic world. "And that is why we are trying to establish sustainable relations with Iran."
The fourth session of the General Conference of Arab Parties concluded its work in Damascus Tuesday evening by releasing a statement listing major developments in the Arab world including Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.

The participants, representing 16 Arab nations, in the statement called for the enactment of a trans-national law punishing the desecration of religious sanctities such as the recent blasphemy committed by a number of European newspapers against the Holy Prophet of Islam (Peace Be Upon Him).

The statement also called for a similar law punishing occupation of a sovereign state by any foreign power, punishment of occupying forces and payment of compensation to victims of foreign occupation.

Expressing support for the Islamic resistance in Palestine and Lebanon as well as the armed operations against occupying forces in Iraq, the participants, in the statement, declared May 25 of every year as `Day of Resistance'.