The president issued his comments as tension between Iran and the international community escalate over Tehran's refusal to stop enriching uranium.

The United States, Britain, Japan, Israel and France have accused Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to produce nuclear weapons. Iran says it is only building nuclear facilities to generate electricity.

Ahmadinejad said Iran's army "has to be constantly ready, equipped and powerful. It has to be equipped with the latest technologies, recognize the enemy and constantly be vigilant." He spoke to military officers before a parade of the armed forces in southern Tehran.

While threatening possible aggressors, Ahmadinejad said Iran's army would "serve peace and security for mankind especially the region and its neighbours."

The "power of our army will be no threat to any country. Our army carries the message of peace and security. . . . It is humble toward friends and a shooting star toward enemies," he said.

The parade was another opportunity for Iran to show off its modern military equipment, which they say includes missiles that are difficult to track with radar, super-fast torpedoes recently tested in war games, and other domestically produced weapons.

The president's speech and the military parade were broadcast live on state-run Iranian television. Foreign military attaches were present.

The radar-avoiding missiles, 320-kilogram bombs, high-speed torpedoes, tanks and other armament were paraded on trucks.

During war games in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea earlier this month, Iran test-fired what it called a "top secret" missile, an "ultra-horizon" weapon that could be fired from military helicopters and jet fighters.

The missile does not use over the horizon targeting that other missiles require to hit targets at maximum range.

Two other new missiles and torpedoes were also tested. The United States said Iran may have made "some strides" in its military but was likely exaggerating its capabilities.

Among the weapons tested in the war games and displayed Tuesday was the Fajr-3, a missile that can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads, and a high-speed torpedo designed to sink war ships.

Iran already possesses Shahab-3 missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometres and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Israel and the United States have jointly developed the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system in response to deployment of the Shahab-3.

Last year, former Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough in Iran's military.

Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armoured personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.

Iran's regular army is separate from the elite Revolutionary Guards that make up the backbone of the ruling Islamic establishment.

Ahmadinejad has engaged in a series of high-profile threatening statements since making the announcement last Tuesday that Iran has successfully enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of a material that can be used to fuel nuclear reactors for generating electricity - or to build atomic bombs.

Since that announcement, Ahmadinejad has also been even more defiant in defending Iran's decision to press ahead with its nuclear program over the UN Security Council's objections.

Republican Sen. Richard Shelby made the remarks when meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Monday, along with two other congressmen, said the English daily report.

"Although I'm not authorized to talk on behalf of President George W. Bush, I know no U.S. plans to attack Iran and Washington still favors a diplomatic way to solve the problem," said Shelby.

Describing his meeting with Mubarak as "good and positive",Shelby said their talks covered ties between Egypt and the U.S. as well as issues of joint interest including the Mideast peace issue and the latest developments in the region in general.

Shelby, who led a visiting U.S. delegation of congressmen, is currently on a multi-leg foreign tour, which will also take them to Libya, Ethiopia, South Africa and Argentina.

He also said the U.S. would try to reach agreements with China, the EU and Russia separately, and would make concessions to them and neighboring Arab countries to isolate the Islamic Republic, as preventing Iran from creating nuclear weapons is Washington's key aim.

Concessions to Russia could include non-opposition to Russia's dominance in the Commonwealth of Independent States, a loose union of ex-Soviet republics, Arbatov said, adding that the U.S. could even start withdrawing troops from Iraq.

"The U.S. understands that Iran has strong regional positions while its troops are deployed in Iraq," Arbatov said, adding that Shiite Iran may become embroiled in conflict with neighboring Sunni countries as soon as U.S. troops leave Iraq.

"When Iran faces this chaos, the U.S. will be able to deliver air strikes against the country," he said.

Iran has been accused of pursuing a covert program to develop nuclear weapons, but has denied the accusations, insisting that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes and that it has the right to produce nuclear fuel on its own soil.

Last Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Iran had joined the club of countries possessing nuclear technology by successfully enriching uranium to a level sufficient for use in nuclear power plants.

UN Security Council permanent members Russia and China held consultations Monday on the issue, and last week reiterated their opposition to any punitive measures against the country.

The other three permanent Security Council members - Britain, France and the United States - demanded that Tehran halt all enrichment activities immediately, and threatened to table a binding, militarily enforceable resolution if it fails to comply.

The three, plus Germany, will join Russia and China for talks in Moscow Tuesday.

Reports by the journalist Seymour Hersh and others suggest that the United States is contemplating bombing a dozen or more nuclear sites, many of them buried, around Iran. In the event, scores of air bases, radar installations and land missiles would also be hit to suppress air defenses. Navy bases and coastal missile sites would be struck to prevent Iranian retaliation against the American fleet and Persian Gulf shipping. Iran's long-range missile installations could also be targets of the initial American air campaign.

These contingencies seem familiar to us because we faced a similar situation as National Security Council staff members in the mid-1990's. American frustrations with Iran were growing, and in early 1996 the House speaker, Newt Gingrich, publicly called for the overthrow of the Iranian government. He and the C.I.A. put together an $18 million package to undertake it.

The Iranian legislature responded with a $20 million initiative for its intelligence organizations to counter American influence in the region. Iranian agents began casing American embassies and other targets around the world. In June 1996, the Qods Force, the covert-action arm of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, arranged the bombing of an apartment building used by our Air Force in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans.

At that point, the Clinton administration and the Pentagon considered a bombing campaign. But after long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the United States.

While the full scope of what America did do remains classified, published reports suggest that the United States responded with a chilling threat to the Tehran government and conducted a global operation that immobilized Iran's intelligence service. Iranian terrorism against the United States ceased.

In essence, both sides looked down the road of conflict and chose to avoid further hostilities. And then the election of the reformist Mohammad Khatami as president of Iran in 1997 gave Washington and Tehran the cover they needed to walk back from the precipice.

Now, as in the mid-90's, any United States bombing campaign would simply begin a multi-move, escalatory process. Iran could respond three ways. First, it could attack Persian Gulf oil facilities and tankers - as it did in the mid-1980's - which could cause oil prices to spike above $80 dollars a barrel.

Second and more likely, Iran could use its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world, including inside the United States. Iran has forces at its command that are far superior to anything Al Qaeda was ever able to field. The Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah has a global reach, and has served in the past as an instrument of Iran. We might hope that Hezbollah, now a political party, would decide that it has too much to lose by joining a war against the United States. But this would be a dangerous bet.

Third, Iran is in a position to make our situation in Iraq far more difficult than it already is. The Badr Brigade and other Shiite militias in Iraq could launch a more deadly campaign against British and American troops. There is every reason to believe that Iran has such a retaliatory shock wave planned and ready.

No matter how Iran responded, the question that would face American planners would be, "What's our next move?" How do we achieve so-called escalation dominance, the condition in which the other side fears responding because they know that the next round of American attacks would be too lethal for the regime to survive?

Bloodied by Iranian retaliation, President Bush would most likely authorize wider and more intensive bombing. Non-military Iranian government targets would probably be struck in a vain hope that the Iranian people would seize the opportunity to overthrow the government. More likely, the American war against Iran would guarantee the regime decades more of control.

So how would bombing Iran serve American interests? In over a decade of looking at the question, no one has ever been able to provide a persuasive answer. The president assures us he will seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis. And there is a role for threats of force to back up diplomacy and help concentrate the minds of our allies. But the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling.

The parallels to the run-up to to war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was "no war plan on my desk" despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion. Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well.

Richard Clarke and Steven Simon were, respectively, national coordinator for security and counterterrorism and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

The celebrated journalist had reported last December that the US was preparing a massive air campaign against Iran and already probing Iranian air defences and mounting special forces ground missions to both target high-value nuclear and strategic targets, and to stir up domestic unrest among Iran's ethnic minorities.

On the list for possible US - and likely Israeli - air and missile strikes: more than twenty Iranian nuclear facilities, including the Busheher reactor; airfields, missile and naval bases; communications nodes; military and intelligence headquarters; military factories; power plants and oil terminals.

No major ground offensive by the US is planned, though its special forces will play an important role in any attack. The surest sign of an impending US attack will be the massing of US strike aircraft in the Gulf and possibly Pakistan and Central Asia, the arrival of additional US aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea, concentration of US Navy minesweepers and shallow-water vessels around the Strait of Hormuz, and heightened activity at US bases in Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, and, of course, Iraq.

Respected international experts say that if Iran wanted to produce nuclear warheads, it would take 5-10 years. UN nuclear inspection has report no signs that Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

But the Bush Administration has used Iran's gleeful announcement that it enriched uranium to 3.5 per cent (83 per cent is needed for nuclear weapons), to generate a major US-Iranian crisis seven months before national mid-term elections. The administration clearly hopes its lurid claims that Iran is a nuclear threat to the world will whip up gullible Americans back into war fever a la Iraq. A bombing campaign before elections would likely reverse the Republican's steep decline in the polls.

Much of the administration's anti-Iranian jihad has been orchestrated, like the attack on Iraq, by Vice-President Dick Cheney, who increasingly emerges as the Rasputin of the Bush presidency. Cheney is a long-term, ardent Christian Zionist who is very close to Israel's political far right. He is carrying out former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's command to the US that once it invaded Iraq, 'march immediately on Teheran.'

Cheney, and the coterie of pro-Israel neoconservatives around him, have long worked closely with Israel's far rightists, Mossad intelligence service, and Israel's strategic planners. All agree that Iran, not Iraq, was the greater enemy of Israel, and one that had at all costs to be crushed before it could develop nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them.

Much of the current anti-Iranian hysteria campaign that is now being trumpeted by the compliant US media and members of Congress is being orchestrated from Cheney's office. It is clear that in spite of the debacle in Iraq, the vice-president intends to pursue his personal jihad against all Muslims regimes that are uncooperative and hostile to Israel.

Cheney has persistently frustrated efforts by the US State Department and CIA to improve relations with Teheran. America's mighty Israel lobby has become Cheney's personal army in this struggle, and is mounting a high-powered campaign to generate war fever against Iran. Jewish Americans have been panicked by false claims that Israel is in the direst nuclear peril.

For its part, Iran has played right into the hands of the war party in Washington. President Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel to be wiped out, his denial of the Jewish Holocaust, and the lavish song and dance spectacular he produced over nuclear enrichment delighted many ordinary Iranians. But abroad, Ahmadinejad's fiery pronouncements created an international firestorm of condemnation and made Iran look precisely what Israel's supporters claim: a rogue nation with a dangerous, erratic leadership that absolutely cannot be trusted with nuclear arms. In short, a Middle East North Korea.

Iranians may be forgiven for over-reacting to nuclear Viagra - Indians and Pakistanis responded the same way. But Iran should have adopted a low key approach to enrichment and invited UN and European observers to attend. By flaunting its infant nuclear technology, Teheran provides the US and Israel with an excellent pretext to attack Iran. In such an event, Iran will have precious few sympathisers around the globe. Many will say, 'Iran got what it deserved.' So much so one really wonders if Iran's leaders - many battle-scarred veterans of the bloody Iran-Iraq war - are daring the US to attack.

The Iranian leadership and the Bush administration are feeding off one another, gaining domestic popularity with each new escalation but drawing their nations into a clash whose outcome could be dangerously unpredictable and would surely shake the entire Middle East and world oil markets.

It would be wiser to have a look at full text of the speech rather than selecting some parts of it. Doubtless it would make sense and would give some clues about the reasons of such a speech.

But before discussing about the context it will be noteworthy to remind some points:

1. The main topic of the organization was "liberation of Al-Qods and anti-zionism"
2. The hostility among two countries is not a secret
3. Anti-zionism is a pillar policy of Islamic Republic of Iran since its existence

Now we can review the speech quickly. At first, he explained the real meaning of Palestine adventure from his point of view. "The Palestine problem is not a conflict among Jewish and Muslims, it is not a conflict between Jewish and other sects; it is neither a fight among two countries nor a fight between a country and the rest Arab world. The establishment of the occupier Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world" he said in his speech. Later on he talked about the historic fight among Muslim world and the world oppressor. "It dates back hundreds of years. Sometimes Islam has advanced. Sometimes nobody was winning. Unfortunately over the past 300 years, the world of Islam has been in retreat," he said and talked about history for a while.

Than he touched on the name of conference and continued his speech by giving some examples to prove that this name is not exaggerated and utopian. He expresses that many external bodies are trying to impose hopelessness in the conflict between Islamic world and the world oppressor.

He said "Lots of hopeless people ask whether a world without America or Zionism is possible or not"? And then, added that the answer to this question is absolutely positive as the same thing was happened in Iran Monarchy case, USSR case and Saddam dictatorship case. He pointed out that the famous iron curtain collapsed and it can be found only in history books nowadays. He told that "A recent similar case is Saddam, who assumed himself immortal and eternal, but today his legs and arms are chained and he is adjudicated by his former collaborators today" and following these examples he made a quotation from the Imam Khomeini's speech and said "As the Imam said, the Occupier regime of al-Qods must be wiped off the map". Than he continued to defend the Palestinians right of having their own territories and own government. The rest of his speech is about supporting Palestine in their justified case, confronting Zionist regime and warning other Islamic countries not to make cooperation with Israel.

After giving a brief of this speech it will be easier to interpret the meaning of words. First of all; the striking slogan does not belong to Mr. Ahmedinejad and it is a quotation from Imam Khomeini's speech. Second, it was used to say that no system is eternal and no unjust regime is undefeatable. Third; phrases can be interpreted in many ways and the result depends on the interpreter's intention and goodwill. And finally, the words saying that "the occupier regime of Al-Qods must wipe off the map" just mean the Zionist regime not Israeli and Jewish people. The Islamic Republic of Iran's anti-zionist and anti-american approach is not a new thing. The "death to America" and "death to Israel" slogans exist since the first days of the revolution. But these slogans aimed at American government and Zionist Regime not their nations and people. On the other hand, both America and Israel declares that the Islamic Regime in Iran shall collapse in every occasion. So what is the difference between both sides' intentions? Do we have to interpret that both Israel and America wish Iran to be wiped of the map, or do we have to understand that their problem is the current Islamic system in Iran? Hence, it will be useful to evaluate the events objectively.

But in the meantime it can be said that senior officials had avoided such a provocative language in the last decade, but Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to be taking a more confrontational tone than recent Iranian leaders. It shall not be a surprise again, because he comes from a more conservative wing and this fact was known even before his election. Thus, his strict and more sensitive attitude towards Palestinian Problem and anti-zionist approach shall not have a shock effect, as this policy was one of the main pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran since its foundation. It will be wiser for Iran to be careful and think of herself more than other nations especially in this period that she has lots of problems with international arena concerning her nuclear activities.

The second point to be analyzed is timing. President Ahmedinejad's comments, reported in world media, came at a time when Tehran is under pressure over its suspect nuclear programs.

Iran has an uranium enrichment program issue that has been criticized for a long time in international arena, but there is still no positive step taken except of threatening Iran to bring the matter to UN Security Council. Iran who is defending its rights as an NPT member, persistently says that she will enrich uranium to produce electricity and minimizing her foreign dependency. As China and Russia who are the most important economic partners of Iran, declared that they will not approve any sanction decision to be taken in Security Council against Iran, the situation is a little bit complex and do not serve to the aims of Western countries and Israel. This is why that timing is important.

Anti-zionist policy has always been the "sine qua non" of Iran's regime. Thus, using a part of Mr. Ahmedinejad's speech that had been quoted from Ayatollah Khomeini's declaration during the first years of revolution and introducing it as a new pronunciation is really worth thinking on it. At first United States, Israel and some European countries are looking for a gap and pretext to prove the dangerous character of Iran Policies to bring her file before the Security Council, prevent her uranium enrichment program and expose her to a plenty of sanctions. Thus; this was perceived as a chance to show that a country with such wishes will also produce nuclear bombs and will use these weapons to destroy Israel. But Even Mark Regev, an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, said "Unfortunately this is not the first time that we've heard such an extremist message from the Iranian leadership. I think there is a growing understanding in the international community that the regime is not Israel's problem alone, but a problem the entire international community must grapple with." This means that these kinds of expressions are not new.

If it is the arguments, they were there since the beginning of the regime, but if it is to wipe out Iran's regime, it seems that even the wing flapping of a butterfly in Tehran is sufficient to find reasons to attack the regime.

Arzu Celalifer , JTW Middle East Correspondent and Researcher, ISRO Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

The state-owned news agency quoted al Sabah as saying Kuwait was "cautious about nuclear matters" and hoped "what is happening in Iran was for peaceful not military purposes."

Rafsanjani, who was president in 1989-97, heads the Expediency Council, a powerful body that arbitrates between Iran's parliament and clerical hierarchy.

U.S. news reports have said the United States was developing contingency plans to use military force against Iran if it continued to challenge attempts by the West and the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency to force Tehran to abandon its uranium enrichment program.

Rafsanjani said Monday that Iran would not step back from enrichment, a process that makes uranium suitable for fuel in nuclear reactors or for use in nuclear bombs.

Iran "does not intend to suspend the enrichment of uranium," Rafsanjani said while visiting the Kuwait Science Center. He added that Iran saw nuclear power as not only an asset for itself but also for the developing world and the pan-Muslim nation.

Although U.S. President George W. Bush has said the military option against Iran was not on the table, the consequences of military action against Tehran's nuclear facilities remains a major concern here.

Venezuela's speaker of parliament, Nicholas Maduro, who is visiting Iran, said Sunday his government would oppose any political pressure or military action against Iran over its nuclear program.

Kuwaitis _ like other Arab states across the Gulf from Iran_ worry about pollution from any nuclear accident in Iran, especially at the reactor in Bushehr which is due to come on stream later this year.

This small oil-rich state has been a key ally of Washington since a U.S.-led international coalition fought the 1991 Gulf War that liberated it from a seven-month Iraqi occupation under Saddam Hussein. It was the launch pad for the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam.

The U.S. military also has bases in Qatar and Bahrain.

Kuwaiti lawmaker Mohammed al-Saqer told reporters that "Iranians are escalating every day and this is terrifying not only for the international community but for the region."

"We feel real concern although our ties with Iran are good and Iran is a brotherly country,." said Al-Saqer, who is head of parliament's foreign relations committee.

The United States and some European countries accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, an accusation Tehran denies, saying it intends only to generate electricity.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, is due to report to the Security Council on April 28 whether Iran has met its demand for a full halt to uranium enrichment. If Tehran has not complied, the council will consider the next step. The U.S. and Europe are pressing for sanctions against Iran, a step Russia and China have so far opposed.

"What we really fear is a (military) escalation with the United States that would ... mean a fierce war in the area," Islamist lawmaker Nasser al-Saneh, told reporters. He said Gulf countries should open "a direct dialogue with Iran" about their concerns, and Rafsanjani's visit was a good first step in that direction.

Speaker al-Kharafi said he "personally" was confident Iran's nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. However, he called on the Islamic republic to "reassure all those who have doubts about its intentions" because lack of transparency increases fears.

Shiite cleric and lawmaker Hussein al-Gallaf told reporters Gulf countries are seeking safety and don't want to be part of any struggle in the area.

"If there is anything to fear, we should fear Israel," he said. "(Iran) is an Islamic state which we don't fear."

All the basic provisions of Russia's stance on this account "are well known and remain valid," the spokesman said, calling for a political settlement of the situation.

Taking part in the consultations in Moscow are high-level diplomats from Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and Germany.

Kamynin said Moscow was concerned with the recent statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Iran's creation of full nuclear cycle.

He described it as a step in the wrong direction that went against the will of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and was in defiance of a statement by the UN Security Council chairman.

"Russia is calling on Iran to take steps to implement the IAEA documents," Kamynin said.

The UN Security Council on March 29 adopted a presidential statement that urged Iran to fully restore the suspension of all activities related to uranium enrichment in 30 days.

As far as I know and read, there is no sign of even an implicit reference to such an idea in the official statements or among officials of the US. When I gave this reason to a leading politician in Iran, he responded by saying that "such an intention would not be publicly announced" by the US if they had such intentions. To which I responded then one may take this thought further and claim that the US might intend to destroy the whole planet!

The reality is that as the most powerful country on this globe, the US has specific interests which it pursues, some through legitimate and other through illegitimate means. If we grasp US interests, which are expressly proclaimed through the national interest strategy of the White House, we can learn of its policies towards other countries around the world.

US policy towards Iran is very clear. It considers the Islamic Republic to be an obstacle towards the full recognition of Israel as a member state of the Middle East. Furthermore, it views some of the policies of the ideology pursued by certain Iranian leaders to be destabilizing, extremist, and advocating terrorism and fundamentalism.

So from the perspective of the US, any military or technological tool that can help Iran advance the above-mentioned goals is viewed as contrary to US interests and thus obliges the White House to confront it. In the past, the US pursued the policy of changing the behavior of Iranian leaders. But with Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad's team in the presidential saddle in Iran, it seems to have concluded that the only way to change the behavior of Iran is through regime change.

The specific details of this US strategy or goal are not yet clear. Still what one can read from the reports in the American press is that the US is leaning on utilizing discontent among Iran's ethnic groups to oppose the government in Tehran.

In other words, certain US circles believe that because some Iranian minorities are deprived of their natural rights, they have a strong reason to rise against the Islamic Republic. So it may utilize this discontent by promoting the idea of some form of federalism in Iran.

This idea however does not tantamount to territorial disintegration of Iran as it is implausible to believe that the US is so ignorant of Iranian domestic affairs and dynamics as to believe that the country can be disintegrated without a major bloody upheaval.

It is clear to any thinker that the separation of even a small part of Iran would make the whole Middle East a deep unstable region for years ahead and would bring about millions of deaths. No reasons exist to believe that the US aspires to permanently destabilize the region and victimize millions of innocent lives in the process. The human tragedy of the Balkans following the disintegration of Yugoslavia has demonstrated to the big powers that breaking up states destabilizes the new states and the whole region so much that it requires them to stay involved in the region indefinitely.

To say that the US does not have a disintegration goal for Iran will most likely be displeasing to many ears in Iran. If so, I would not view this anger to arise from their belief in the territorial integrity of Iran because those who advocate such conspiratorial theories are in fact helping promote this idea. And it is clear how. Through their advocacy of the disintegration of Iran, those few individuals, who also believe that a major power such as the US would support them, are in fact inviting other ignorant people to join them in their quest.

So in the absence of any real evidence for such scenarios, it is not in the interests of Iran to talk of such ideas which stem from the pure imagination of certain figures, because by claiming that the US would or does support such a disintegration, they are in fact providing spiritual and moral support to those few who genuinely may be wishing for such a break-up.

Editor's note: Mr. Ahmad Zydabadi is an activist journalist and dissident associated with the outlawed, but tolerated nationalist-religious groups in Iran and as a prominent and influential reformist journalist, he had been arrested several times.

He contributed the above article to the independent internet daily "Rooz" (Day), posted on 10 April 2006.

Highlights and some editing are by IPS.

Contrary to what he says, news about some US "thinkers" are looking at the option of cutting the oil-rich Province of Khouzistan that borders with the Iraqi oil reservoir of Basra, now under the control of British forces and cutting all Iranian costal lines in the Persian Gulf from shipping is circulating.