Even as £45 million is pumped into television and radio outlets to broadcast to the Iranian people, listening posts are to be opened in countries close to Iran to make up for America's lack of a diplomatic presence there.

At the same time officials from the state department and the Pentagon, traditionally at loggerheads on Iran, appear to be sounding the same tune. Talk of "overtures" and "outreach to Teheran", the preferred approach of many in the state department in President George W Bush's first term, is over as Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, nudges the diplomats towards a more confrontational approach.

"A lot of things have come together," a senior administration official told The Daily Telegraph yesterday. "It's not yet the end of the line. . . but this is the moment for us to start organising our efforts."

US officials are privately cockahoop that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's new president, has "played into their hands" by threatening to eliminate Israel and by denying the Holocaust.

That played a crucial role in bolstering EU nations, in particular Germany, to abandon misgivings over the Bush administration and work with it to confront Iran.

"So determined are they to get nuclear weapons that they have forfeited a lot of what they had gained. It had been a great success of Iranian foreign policy to split America and Europe but they have thrown that away," said the official.

The official insisted that military action against Iran's nuclear sites remained a last resort. But he suggested that people were wrong to assume that the presence of 130,000 US troops across the border in Iraq meant that action was out of the question. "I wouldn't assume anything. Our president has said everything is still on the table."

Some insiders suggest that a decision will have to be made on military action by the end of this year.

In the meantime there will be a twin-track approach of boosting external and internal opponents of the regime, while trying to stiffen the spines of nations on the Security Council so they do not shrink from imposing penalties on Iran. The plan is for the pressure to intensify bit by bit rather than to bring the issue to a sudden climax.

"We still support diplomatic measures but they ought to include using the UN Security Council and putting the Iranians on the spot if they continue to defy everybody," said the official. Analysts caution that backing the exiled opposition and sending messages to internal opponents of the regime risks backfiring badly and bolstering the mullahs.

But in Washington officials feel that after deliberately staying on the sidelines over a year of diplomacy led by Britain, France and Germany, it is time to take charge of the debate.

Mr Bush has spent more and more time on the issue in recent months, inviting dozens of analysts to the White House for briefings. The state department last week created a special Iran desk.

Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state, told the Washington Post yesterday that more diplomats would be posted to countries around Iran specifically to focus on Teheran.

He said that a new outpost in Dubai would be the "21st Century equivalent" of the station in Riga, the capital of Latvia, in the 1930s when Washington had no embassy in the Soviet Union.

It also warned Russia that its ties with the West depend on democratic reforms, and urged China to embrace greater political freedom -- while saying that Washington will "hedge" for the possibility this does not happen.

And the report pleaded for patience with what has thus far been a mostly fruitless policy towards ending what it again referred to as "genocide" in Sudan's troubled region of Darfur.

The blueprint made no direct reference to possible UN Security Council action to punish Iran for refusing to freeze sensitive aspects of its nuclear program, which Washington says hides an atomic weapons project.

Instead, it referred to US-backed diplomacy by Britain, France and Germany, as well as efforts by Russia, and cautioned that "this diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."

Bush has said that he hopes for a diplomatic solution to the North Korean and Iranian crises, while refusing to rule out military options.

The document made clear that Washington does not view the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that were at the core of its public case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a blow against its strategy of preventive war.

That strategy was fleshed out in the 2002 version of the document, which built on Bush's position that the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes made Cold War deterrence obsolete and required bolder action.

"The place of preemption in our national security strategy remains the same," the White House said on Thursday. "We do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur."

Bush had made Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of chemical and biological weapons and pursuit of nuclear arms the centerpiece of his case for war, but no such weapons have been found.

"There will always be some uncertainty" about banned weapons programs, the White House said. "We have no doubt that the world is better of if tyrants know that they pursue WMD at their own peril."

The document branded North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe as tyrannies, and warned that tyrannies that seek weapons of mass destruction "threaten our immediate security interests."

While praising Beijing's help on the North Korean nuclear crisis, Washington said it sought "to encourage China to make the right strategic choices for its people, while we hedge against other possibilities."

On Russia, the document cautioned Moscow that "efforts to prevent democratic development at home and abroad will hamper" ties with its neighbors, Europe, and the United States.

On Latin America, the document singled out Venezuela and referred to President Hugo Chavez as "a demagogue awash in oil money," who "is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region."

The document also restated Washington's support for the creation of a Palestinan state at peace with Israel and reasserted the US view that Hamas, which recently won a landslide election victory, must renounce violence, accept Israel, and disarm.

It added so-called "bird flu" to HIV/AIDS as a disease with such severe ramifications that it rises to the level of national security threat.

While the document is technically required every year, this is the first since 2002. The 2006 version comes as Bush's Republican party aims to make national security its central issue in November legislative elections.

The report can be found online at www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

"Such actions, along with Iran's support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, are increasingly isolating Iran, and America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats."

Bush's administration has been critical of Iran, accusing Tehran of trying to build nuclear weapons.

It has been threatening to bring the issue to the United Nations Security Council to seek possible sanctions.

Iran, whose hardline Islamic government fought a bitter war against Iraq in the 1980s, says it has a right to develop a peaceful nuclear program aimed at generating power.

Bush on new PR offensive

Bush's speech was billed as the first in a series intended to rebuild public support for the U.S. military's presence in Iraq, in the wake of an AP-Ipsos poll last week that showed the president's approval rating had dipped to an all-time low.

The poll suggested only 39 per cent of Americans support Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, where 133,000 U.S. troops are currently stationed.

"We will not lose our nerve," Bush said in Monday's speech, pledging that the United States would continue to face off against militants in Iraq.

"I wish I could tell you that the violence is waning and that the road ahead will be smooth. It will not. There will be more tough fighting and more days of struggle, and we will see more images of chaos and carnage in the days and months to come."

Bush said the militants were trying to shake Americans' resolve and force a retreat, but he vowed not to let them succeed.

"The battle lines in Iraq are clearly drawn for the world to see and there is no middle ground. The enemy will emerge from Iraq one of two ways: emboldened or defeated."

1 in 10 of British troops leaving

On a related note, Britain said Monday that it intends to decrease the number of troops it maintains in Iraq by 10 per cent, amounting to 800 soldiers.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been Bush's strongest ally in the international coalition that has been trying to maintain order in Iraq in the three years since a U.S.-led invasion ousted former leader Saddam Hussein.

"Our commitment to the coalition remains certain," Defence Secretary John Reid said in a speech to the British House of Commons.

Britain is reducing its contingent of troops because Iraqi security forces are ready to take a greater role in policing the country, Reid said.

''We've been trying to get this issue into the Security Council for close to four years and other countries, including other permanent members, haven't had that view, so it's no surprise that different views remain,'' Bolton told reporters at the UN.

U.K. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said Britain, France and the U.S. want a statement supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency's demand for greater cooperation by Iran, urging Iran to comply and seeking an IAEA report on the response.

Iran, holder of the world's second-largest reserves of oil and gas, said it has the right to produce enriched uranium, which can be used in nuclear reactors and bombs. The IAEA can't ''conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,'' Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in a report send to the Security Council's 15-member governments last week.

Enrichment

Iran announced that it would resume uranium enrichment after talks with the France, Germany and the U.K. broke down.

Chinese and Russian envoys have said they don't want to go beyond an expression of support for the IAEA in the Security Council. Sanctions on Iran aren't being considered.

Jones Parry said the U.S., U.K. and France would circulate a text to the Security Council's 10 elected members as early as tomorrow, regardless of whether agreement is reached with China and Russia. He said there is agreement among the permanent members on very basic goals.

''On strategic goals there is absolutely no disagreement,'' he said. ''Our aim is to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons, encourage Iran to come into compliance with what the governing board of the IAEA has asked. We are discussing the best means by which we can apply pressure to encourage Iran and demonstrate support for the board.''

Bolton said the U.S., U.K. and France might submit their text as a resolution that would be voted on by the Security Council, and which China and Russia could veto. Their initial plan was for a statement adopted by consensus, without a vote.

In Washington, President George W. Bush today extended economic sanctions against Iran that have been in effect since March 1995. The routine annual notice, which prevents trade between the U.S. and Iran, keeps the sanctions from expiring on March 15.

The ''crisis'' between the U.S. and Iran ''has not been resolved,'' Bush's notice to Congress says. Iran's policies are ''contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States,'' the statement says.

China wants only a short statement reiterating there are concerns about Iran's program, allowing space for continued diplomatic efforts to bring Iran on board, Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters afterward.

''What we want is to leave the room and sufficient time for all diplomatic efforts to play,'' he said. ''So therefore I think we should not close all the doors for diplomatic activities.''

China also wants to reinforce efforts by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and ''not to replace the IAEA,'' Wang said.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Washington agrees the IAEA has a role, but also believes ''the Security Council has an independent obligation when faced with the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in violation of treaty obligations, which is what the case of Iran is.''

He said the Bush administration wants to move ''as quickly as we can,'' although he added that it wants to maintain the unity of the five permanent council members.

''Every day that goes by is a day that permits the Iranians to get closer to a nuclear weapons capability,'' Bolton said.

Iran insists its atomic program has only the peaceful purpose of using nuclear reactors to generate electricity. Its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tuesday that the program is ''irreversible'' and warned that giving in to international pressure would ''break the country's independence.''

Later Tuesday, Britain and France were expected to outline their proposed statement to the 10 non-permanent Security Council members, which are elected for two-year terms. Bolton said the five permanent members would meet again Wednesday morning.

The United States, Britain and France think a strong council statement could further isolate Iran and pressure it to abide by demands from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, and they raise the possibility that it might have to resort to tougher measures later, such as sanctions.

Russia and China, which have strong business and political ties to Iran, argue that action would risk angering Tehran further, leading Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and kick out IAEA inspectors.

Last month, the IAEA's board voted to report Iran to the Security Council, saying it lacked confidence in the Tehran regime's nuclear intentions and accusing Iran of violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Iran responded by ending voluntary cooperation with the IAEA and announcing it would start uranium enrichment and bar surprise inspections of its facilities.

The workshops, conducted by U.S.-based groups, were held in April. But Iranian investigators did not summon participants until last month, about the time the Bush administration announced plans to spend $85 million "to support the cause of freedom in Iran this year."

"We are under pressure here both from hard-liners in the judiciary and that stupid George Bush," activist Emad Baghi said as he waited for his wife and daughter to emerge from interrogation last week.

The fallout illustrates the challenge facing Washington as it seeks a role in a country where U.S. influence is unwelcome even by many who share the same goal.

"Unfortunately, I've got to say it has a negative effect, not a positive one," said Abdolfattah Soltani, a human-rights lawyer recently released from seven months in prison.

After writing in a newspaper that his clients were beaten while in jail, Soltani was charged with offenses that included spying for the United States.

"This is something we all know, that a way of dealing with human-rights activists is to claim they have secret relations with foreign powers," said Soltani, who co-founded a human-rights defense group with Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi. "This very much limits our actions. It is very dangerous to our society."

Activists said the Bush initiative demonstrates the chasm that often separates those working inside Iran for greater freedoms - carefully calibrating their actions to nudge incremental changes in a hostile system - and the more strident approach of many Iranian exiles who often have the ear of Washington.

"Our society is very complicated," said Vahid Pourostad, editor of National Trust, a reform newspaper. "Generally speaking, it is impossible to impose something from outside.

"It seems to me the United States is not studying the history of Iran very carefully," Pourostad said. "Whenever they came and supported an idea publicly, the public has done the opposite."

Russia, China resist pressuring Iran

UNITED NATIONS - Russia and China have rejected proposals from the United States and other veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council for a statement demanding Iran clear up suspicions about its nuclear program, diplomats said Monday.

The dispute raises the threat of an impasse in the Security Council and means that the U.S., Britain and France may not get their wish for strong action by the powerful U.N. body.

They believe such a text could further isolate Iran and help force it to abandon uranium enrichment, a process that can make fuel for a civilian nuclear reactor or fissile material for an atomic bomb.

The Associated Press

The administration knew from the beginning that the world body would not support sanctions or military action. The intention was simply to increase suspicion about Iran's nuclear programs and mobilize public support for a war.

In fact, the United States is not at all concerned with Iran's nuclear programs. It is merely a hoax that is being used to conceal Washington's war plans.

Presently, the administration is trying to coerce the Security Council to issue a strongly-worded "presidential statement" laying out what Iran needs to do to ease concerns that it is using its civilian programs to hide a nuclear weapons program.

Since there is "no evidence" of such programs (according to the UN watchdog agency IAEA) the Security Council should not become involved in a process that can only strengthen the administrations plans to attack Iran.

The "presidential statement" does not have the power of a Security Council "resolution". It cannot be used to apply sanctions or to take military action. It is purely a formal reprimand that makes constructive suggestions for changing behavior. It is designed to allay fears that Iran may be secretly building nukes. Unfortunately, the statement is utterly meaningless since Iran has already allowed the most extensive inspection regime to rummage through every aspect of its nuclear program for 2 years without producing any proof of wrongdoing.

The Bush administration would never waste its time on diplomatic maneuvering unless it had a goal in mind. The strategy for using the presidential statement as a pretext for war is evident in the way the wording is being negotiated. Rather than simply saying that the Security Council hopes that Iran will guarantee that its program is "exclusively peaceful purposes"; the US wants to add that, "continued enrichment-related activity would add to the importance and urgency of further action by the Council".

This phrasing provides the US with a pretext for intervention if Iran continues to enrich uranium.

The statement also contains a demand that Iran accept an "additional protocol" that gives IAEA inspectors "exceptional access to plants". It asks for "additional 'transparency measures,' including access to individuals, documents, and research laboratories".

In essence, the statement insists that Iran forgo its "inalienable right" to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and accept an intrusive inspection-regime that can ferret through every armory, barracks, conventional-weapons site, communications facility, ammunition-dump, palace, and research laboratory in the country. This is the same rule that was applied to Saddam before the war in Iraq.

But, why should Iran agree to this public humiliation if it has done nothing wrong? Should they sacrifice their sovereign rights just to placate Washington?

Iran will never accept these conditions nor would the United States if the situation was reversed. Iran must continue to defend its right to enrich uranium and, thus, vindicate the principle that underscores international treaties. The Bush administration has no authority to repeal treaties nor does it have the right to create the conditions whereby the terms of those treaties are rescinded.

The "presidential statement" will be used in the media to demonize Iran for its alleged "defiance" and to convince the public that there is universal agreement on Iran's imaginary nuclear weapons programs. Although the statement does not authorize the US to take unilateral action, it will be used to do just that. John Bolton has already admitted that if the Security Council does not meet the administrations expectations, the US may act on its own and look for partners in applying sanctions or taking military action.

So, where do we go from here?

There's a good chance that the logistical groundwork for war with Iran has already been laid. This would explain the earnestness of American diplomats at the State Dept. and the UN.

The Security Council needs to realize the gravity of the situation and take positive steps to diffuse the crisis. The Council should forgo the issuing of the "presidential statement" and buttress Iran's rights under the NPT to enrich uranium under the strict supervision of the IAEA. They should also condemn any unilateral action by member states as a violation to the UN Charter which confers sole authority to the UN Security Council for sanctions or military action.

Most of all, the United Nations must defend its own credibility as a viable institution for world peace by ensuring that it is not used to mask the war-mongering objectives of other nations.