"We also possess the technical and other capabilities to defend our interests," Ahmadinejad added.

"Any mistreatment of the Iranian people will actually cause more losses to them," he said without elaborating.

Washington and its European allies have been seeking a U.N. Security Council resolution that would oblige Iran to halt all uranium enrichment work or face possible sanctions.

But this week the drive for a resolution slowed as Washington agreed to first let Europeans devise a package of benefits to induce Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions and sanctions if it does not.

Consequently, there might not be a decision on a draft U.N. resolution for about two weeks.

Tehran says it only wants to produce low-grade enriched uranium to use in atomic power reactors, not the highly enriched uranium needed to make bombs.

Iran is "ready to engage in dialogue with anybody," Ahmadinejad said in the interview, responding to a question about a letter he wrote to President Bush this week.

European Union efforts since 2003 to win guarantees that Iran is not making nuclear weapons have foundered, with Iran pushing ahead since April on enriching uranium for what can be nuclear reactor fuel but also nuclear bomb material.

The United States has refused to talk directly to Iran but backs the EU diplomacy.

"I have asked all sides to lower their rhetoric and intensify diplomatic efforts to find a solution," Annan said.

"I have also stated very clearly both in private and in my contacts with the American administration and publicly that I think it is important that the United States come to the table and that they should join all the European countries and Iran to find a solution," he said on the sidelines of a European Union-Latin American summit.

On Wednesday the United States, which has failed to win support for UN sanctions against Iran, announced it would give its European allies "a couple of weeks" to draft a fresh approach to persuading Tehran to drop its disputed nuclear activities.

Diplomats said negotiators from the Security Council's permanent members -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- plus Germany planned to meet in London on May 19 to weigh a new package of incentives as well as penalties.

The United States charges that Iran is using a nuclear program it says is a peaceful effort to generate electricity to hide the development of nuclear weapons.

Asked if Iran was preparing for a potential military strike, he replied: "We deem that this matter is far from the possibility of taking place."

Ahmadinejad later attended Friday prayers at Jakarta's Istiqlal mosque, the largest in Indonesia, where he was mobbed by a crowd of thousands eager to catch a glimpse of him and shake his hand.

The congregation chanted "God is great!" when he was introduced by Indonesia's religious affairs minister.

"Indonesian people are people of faith and I am honoured to have come here," he told them.

Ahmadinejad's visit comes amid a backdrop of frantic international diplomacy over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

The United States and European Union troika of Britain, France and Germany are pushing for a binding UN resolution that could clear the way for economic sanctions, possible escalating toward military action.

They are meeting resistance from China and Russia, however, which both have close economic ties with Iran.

On Wednesday Washington, which has so far failed to win support for UN sanctions against Tehran, said it would give its European partners "a couple of weeks" to draft a fresh approach.

On Thursday, the Iranian leader ramped up his rhetoric against the West, calling Israel a "cancer" that would "one day vanish".

"We believe that a government such as this one will not last long because it is built on tyranny and tyranny will not last long," he said as he also brushed off the threat of sanctions and war against Tehran.

"The idea of going to war is a joke, it's like a joke. Why should there be a war?" he said. "They do know that any mistreatment of the Iranian people will actually cause more losses to them than for us."

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who met with Ahmadinejad on Wednesday, backed Tehran's claim that its nuclear program was peaceful.

But on Thursday, Indonesia's Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda said his country had not offered to mediate in talks aimed at resolving Iran's nuclear stand-off as Yudhoyono's spokesman earlier told reporters.

Ahmadinejad was due to fly to Bali Friday afternoon to attend a summit of the Developing-8 (D-8) group of large Muslim countries on Saturday.

Iran's courting of Indonesia comes as both the United States and Britain have been keen to build ties with it and hold up its moderate version of Islam and democratic credentials as an example to other Muslim nations.

Ahmadinejad's letter is statesmanlike, but heartfelt; more John Locke than John Brown. It articulates Iran's long list of grievances with the United States, but it also offers a constructive vision for working towards a common goal.

Ahmadinejad pointedly asks how Bush can square his professed belief in Christ with the deliberate killing of "one hundred thousand people", the polluting of Iraq's water sources, and the utter destruction of its agriculture and industry.

He challenges Bush's treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have been deprived of their rights "and kept in a strange land outside their country". He also disparages the CIA's use of secret gulags where kidnapped victims are taken to be tortured.

How "can one justify these undeniable contradictions", Ahmadinejad wonders?

How can these actions be "reconciled with the traditions of Jesus Christ, the messenger of peace and forgiveness"?

Ahmadinejad's letter is not argumentative or demagogic, but well-reasoned and insightful. Many others have questioned the inconsistencies of Bush's profession of faith, and for good reason.

Never the less, the media has dismissed the letter as "rambling and scolding"; an obvious attempt to discredit its author.

The letter contains none of the fiery rhetoric that is normally attributed Ahmadinejad to make him look like a menace. Could it be that everything we've heard about him in the press is just baseless libel to make him look like a threat or a racist?

Probably.

Americans are not supposed to like Ahmadinejad. The media describes him as a Muslim fanatic who "allegedly" wants Israel "wiped off the map". There's a great deal of dispute over this matter since Ahmadinejad's comments do not translate into what his critics say. But, let's assume that the media is correct that he is a religious zealot. What then?

Should we kill him? Should we bomb his country back to the Stone Age; poison the water, destroy the civilian-infrastructure, spread depleted uranium throughout the countryside and kill and torture his people?

If foreign nations have the right to kill religious fanatics, then we'd better start digging bunkers for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson right now.

Ahmadinejad's only crime is that he sits on an ocean of oil just like his friend Hugo Chavez. He's no threat to anyone except, perhaps, the American media which is paid to make up stories demonizing Washington's future targets. The real war criminals are in the White House cooking up their next genocidal intervention.

Ahmadinejad has been widely criticized for his comments about Israel. In his letter, however, he presents his position clearly and persuasively. He states:

"A regime (Israel) has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, it destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its intention to assassinate Palestinian leaders and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison....Why is this regime being supported?" Should we allow outsiders "whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine the fate (of the Palestinians)?"

Isn't this a fair question for someone, who has seen first-hand the appalling effects of Israeli occupation on innocent civilians, to ask? Or is this merely an example of the virulent anti-Semitism of which Ahmadinejad has been accused?

Ahmadinejad asks, "Why are all the United Nations Security Council resolutions against Israel vetoed by the United States"?

Why, indeed? Saddam was bombed and deposed without UN authorization while Israel gets a $3 billion bonus each year for thumbing its nose at the Security Council.

Where's the justice?

Addressing the nuclear issue Ahmadinejad says,

"Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to Israel? Is not scientific research and development one of the basic rights of nations"?

Ahmadinejad is right; if Iran is willing to play by the rules and follow the guidelines of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) who can forbid them to develop nuclear power to fuel their turbines and heat their houses?

Ahmadinejad builds his case by asking why America supports "coup leaders in Latin America" and the ongoing "looting of Africa". He asks why the CIA toppled the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953 replacing it with the brutal Shah who ruled with an iron-fist for 25 years.

These are the queries of a reflective man; not the ravings of a radical Islamo-sociopath.

His questions create the basis for understanding the context of the current nuclear standoff. That's why the media has scrupulously omitted the more important passages from their coverage.

I have no illusions about Iran or Ahmadinejad. Any society that represses its people, treats its women like second-class citizens, and applies the death sentence to homosexuals deserves to be condemned by the international community. But, does that give the United States the right to flatten its towns and cities, killing hundreds and thousands of people in order to topple the regime and spread its free-market ideology from the barrel of a gun?

Does it allow Congress to allocate millions of dollars to incite violence and foment revolution in the hopes of tightening America's imperial grip on the region?

No; these solutions are more odious than the crimes of the regime. Nothing is worse than colonial exploitation. Any doubt of that has been removed by the bloody occupation of Iraq.

Ahmadinejad on the Media .

Ahmadinejad's analysis of the media could have been written by Noam Chomsky; both are equally perceptive in their grasp of the power of propaganda on the public mind:

"American citizens live in constant fear"... They feel insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. ..The media, instead of conveying a feeling of providing peace of mind, feeds the feelings of insecurity. Some believe that the hype paved the way for the attack on Iraq. ....The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly to set the ground for the attack.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate?"

Who would argue with this analysis of the media's part in paving the way for war? Even now, nearly 85% of soldiers deployed to Iraq believe that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks of 9-11, an astonishing admission of the corrupt and adversarial role of the corporate media in the US.

Has there ever been a more effective propaganda-system?

Ahmadinejad closes his letter with an appeal to Bush to take advantage of his position and use the opportunity to relieve suffering and poverty and practice the teachings of Jesus Christ.

He asks:

"Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity andunemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported special interest groups, and by forcing people to live in poverty and hardship? Did we bring the world peace and security or raise the specter of intimidation and threats?"

Americans will find Ahmadinejad's questions easy to answer, although unsettling. The US is in the vice-like grip of zealots and war-mongers. It has alienated its friends, relinquished its moral authority, and is careening towards catastrophe. The administration is no more interested in alleviating "poverty and hardship" than it is in the "peace and security" of its people. It is ghoulishly fixated on expanding its global resource war and plunging the region into chaos.

Bush is quick-stepping to war with Iran and the cautionary wisdom of the Iranian president is unlikely to slow him down.

Iran is America's Rubicon; cross that river and there's no turning back. As Ahmadinejad warned, "The Lord is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of the oppressors."

Bush should take note.

(Comment: I have found nothing that convinces me that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite, although I could be wrong. He does, however, object strongly to the ongoing occupation and expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

It is quite clear that the media has decided to demonize him by portraying him as an anti-Semite and a threat to Israel. Readers will have to judge for themselves whether the accusations are accurate or part of a larger campaign to draw the country into another war)

On Wednesday Olmert convened Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and senior defense officials to discuss the US visit.

The PM is scheduled to stay in the American capital for four days. On the second day of his trip Olmert will meet Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. On the third day, May 23, the PM will meet President Bush at the White House. The day following his meeting with the president, Olmert is set to speak before the two Houses of Congress.

Diplomatic officials in Jerusalem stressed that the main purpose of the visit is to hold an introduction between Olmert and the senior American officials, and to confirm both countries see eye to eye on several issues.

Olmert will also seek to emphasize during the visit the need for international action against the Iranian nuclear plan and the Hamas government, which threaten the region. Olmert will point to the link between the two subjects.

The PM will make clear to his American counterparts that Tehran's nuclear project, and the country's threats to destroy Israel, represent a threat to the entire Western world. He is also set to stress that the same Iranian government supports Hizbullah, which poses a threat to Israel's northern border, and the Hamas-led government that is behind unrest in the territories.

One of the options Jerusalem officials are considering, is that the Americans will ask Olmert to engage in dialogue with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Israel at this point rules out any possibility for talks with the PA, and a government decision from April 11 has also branded the Authority a terrorist entity.

Speculation has been growing on a possible air strike against Iran. But with the failure of the Bush administration to present a convincing case to the UN Security Council and to secure political backing domestically, some experts say the march toward war with Iran is on pause barring an "immediate need."

"In March/April of this year [the US] was pushing for quick closure, a thirty day window," says a source close to the UN Security Council, describing efforts by the Administration to "shore up enough support" to get a UN Chapter 7 resolution.

A UN Chapter 7 resolution makes it possible for sanctions to be imposed against an uncooperative nation and leaves the door open to military action.

The UN source also says that a military analysis suggests that no military action should be undertaken in Iran until spring of 2007, but that things remain volatile given this administration’s penchant for having "their own way."

Strike could come earlier than thought

Other military and intelligence sources are expressing concern both privately and publicly that air strikes on Iran could come earlier than believed.

Retired Air Force Colonel and former faculty member at the National War College Sam Gardiner has heard some military suggestions of a possible air campaign in the near future, and although he has no intimate knowledge of such plans, he says recent aircraft carrier activity and current operations on the ground in Iran have raised red flags.

Gardiner says his concerns have kept him busy attempting to create the most likely scenario should such an attack occur.

"I would expect two or three aircraft carriers would be moved into the area," Gardner said, describing what he thinks is the best way air strikes could be carried out without disengaging assets from US fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Two air-craft carriers are already en route to the region, RAW STORY has found. The USS Abraham Lincoln, which recently made a port call in Singapore, and the USS Enterprise which left Norfolk, Virginia earlier this month, are headed for the Western Pacific and Middle East. The USS Ronald Reagan is already operating in the Gulf.

In addition to aircraft carrier activity, Gardiner says, B-2 bombers would be critical.

"I would expect the B-2's, the main firepower asset, to be flown on missions directly from the United States," Gardiner explained. "I would expect B-52's to be flown in strikes from the UK and Diego Garcia."

"Finally," he added, "a large number of cruise missiles would be fired from the carrier support ships."

Steven Aftergood, senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, says that the B-2 bomber is capable of such long range activity.

"The B2 bomber was designed, with the Soviet Union in mind, for intercontinental operations," Aftergood said. "With aerial refueling, it has a range of up to 10,000 miles."

Like Gardiner, Aftergood has heard similar claims with regard to a June strike, but has not been able to confirm them independently.

Intelligence sources confirm hearing the allegations of a June attack, but have been unable to fully confirm that such an attack is in the works. Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have previously reported that the Pentagon is studying military options on Iran.

All sources, however, agree that given the administration’s interest in regime change, an attack on Iran is likely, regardless of international support or UN backing. Furthermore, all sources agree that Gardiner’s scenario is the most probable, including an estimated duration and "pause" assessment.

Gardiner believes that the entire initial operation could run quickly, roughly 24-72 hours. "Most of the strikes would be at night," he said. "The Iranian nuclear facilities will be targeted; more important however, a major effort would focus on Iran's capability to retaliate. The US will target missile facilities, air bases and naval assets."

"After the initial effort, there will be a pause during which time the Iranians will be told that if they retaliate, the air strikes would continue," he added.

The Pentagon did not return calls for comment.

Advance teams under way; Congress ‘bypassed’

As previously reported by Raw Story, a terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) is being used on the ground in Iran by the Pentegon, bypassing US intelligence channels. The report was subsequently covered by the Asia Times (Article).

Military and intelligence sources now say no Presidential finding exists on MEK ops. Without a presidential finding, the operation circumvents the oversight of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

Congressional aides for the relevant oversight committees would not confirm or deny allegations that no Presidential finding had been done. One Democratic aide, however, wishing to remain anonymous for this article, did say that any use of the MEK would be illegal.

In addition, sources say that a March attack that killed 22 Iranian officials in the province of Sistan va Baluchistan was carried out by the MEK.

According to a report by Iran Focus filed Mar. 23, the twenty-two people killed in the ambush included high ranking officials, including the governor of Zahedan.

"Hours after the attack took place, Ahmadi-Moqaddam announced there was evidence the assailants had held meetings with British intelligence officers," the Iranian news service reported.

"Radical Shiite cleric Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi also claimed the people behind the attack were the same as those behind a spate of bombings in Iran’s south-western province of Khuzestan earlier this year and in 2005," it added.

Military and intelligence sources say that MEK assets were responsible for this attack, but did not know if the US military was involved or if US military assets were part of the ambush.

One former high ranking US intelligence official described the use of MEK as more of a "Cambone" operation than a "Department of Defense operation."

Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence Stephen Cambone, a stalwart neo-conservative, is considered by many to be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s right-hand man.

During a White House briefing in early May, outgoing press secretary Scott McClellan denied that the administration was using MEK, among several other terrorist organizations named, for ground activity in Iran.

"There are numerous reports about low-intensity operations ongoing in Iran from three different places -- PKK going over the border into Iraq, the MEK southern border of Iraq into Iran, and also certain operations from Balochistan involving also the Pakistanis," a reporter asked. "Does the U.S. have a policy, given also reports which I know you won't comment on, on possible special forces operations in Iran?"

"Our policies haven't changed on those organizations," McClellan said. "They remain the same. And you're bringing up organizations that we view as terrorist organizations."

"We would never cooperate with them, in terms of—" the questioner continued.

"Our policy hasn't changed," McClellan replied.

Military, intelligence community alarmed

According to a New Yorker article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, other activities aimed at intimidating and agitating Iranian leadership are also underway.

"One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of ‘coercion’ aimed at Iran," Hersh wrote.

The increase in violence on the southern border of Iran, the movement of aircraft carriers into the region, the insistence of Iran’s leadership that they intend to be a player on the nuclear stage and the Bush Administration’s focus on regime change make military and intelligence sources nervous.

"[President] Bush thinks that history will judge him as a great leader, not unlike Winston Churchill," one former high-ranking military intelligence official remarked.

For now, Gardiner and others remain on the sidelines as the Administration plots their next move.

But the media have ignored some essential facts about the brewing "crisis" between the U.S. and Iran.

The U.S. is striving to get a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Iran stop its nuclear program. But the truth is that Iran hasn't violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or any other international obligations.

"Let me remind everybody that nothing Iran is accused of doing is illegal," said Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector who challenged the Bush drive to war against Iraq, in an interview last month. "We're condemning Iran for doing that which is permitted under a treaty which it has signed and entered into in force, and has UN inspectors on the ground verifying Iranian compliance."

The NPT explicitly allows nations to enrich uranium to provide energy for civilian power plants. But the U.S. refuses to believe Iran's many pledges that its nuclear facilities are for this purpose and endlessly repeats the claim that Iran could field a nuclear weapon soon.

Iran's announcement in April that it had successfully set up 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium spurred U.S. officials to assert that Iran could produce a nuclear weapons in 16 days--an absurd claim slavishly repeated by the U.S. media.

In reality, Iran would need 16,000 of these centrifuges to refine enough uranium for a weapon--and Iran doesn't have enough uranium for this purpose. Although Iran has indigenous uranium deposits, they are contaminated by the element molybdenum, which Iran does not have the technology to remove.

A more realistic approximation came in the 2005 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which stated that Iran is at least 10 years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. And this assessment depends on two key assumptions--that Iran already has an active nuclear weapons program, and that the "international atmosphere" were conducive to Iran obtaining the necessary raw materials and technical support--neither of which are true.

In an attempt to defuse the controversy around its nuclear program, Iran offered to limit itself to procuring no more than 3,000 centrifuges--an offer that the U.S. refused to accept.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHILE IRAN hasn't violated the provisions of the NPT, the same can't be said of the U.S.

Kennedy-era Defense Secretary Robert McNamara declared last year that the U.S. is nothing short of a "nuclear outlaw." "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary and dreadfully dangerous," said McNamara.

Since 1999, when the Senate rejected the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the U.S. has developed a new generation of "mini-nukes," also called "bunker busters," which U.S. officials have openly threatened to use against Iran--a clear violation of international law and the NPT.

The U.S. is in flagrant violation of the NPT's provisions calling on nuclear powers "to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery."

According to the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), "Thirty-seven years after agreeing to these conditions, the U.S.--the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons against human beings--spends $40 billion a year to field, maintain and modernize nuclear forces, including an arsenal of 10,000 warheads, 2,000 of which are on hair-trigger alert."

Of that number, the U.S. has some 480 nuclear weapons based in Europe--making it the only nuclear power that still deploys nuclear warheads outside its borders. U.S. war plans include the strategic handover of 180 of these weapons to other non-nuclear countries, such as Germany, Italy and Turkey, for deployment by their militaries--another clear violation of NPT provisions.

And, according to FAIR, "When details of a secret White House planning document, called the Nuclear Posture Review, were leaked in 2002, they revealed that the Bush administration intended to create and test new nuclear weapons, and outlined a broad array of contingencies under which the U.S. might use nuclear weapons.

"Among these contingencies: Using nuclear weapons against countries with no nuclear weapons capacity, such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. (To be fair, Presidential Directive 60, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, had earlier added these countries to nuclear targeting lists, canceling assurances that went back to 1978 that the U.S. would not use nuclear force against a non-nuclear country.)"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE U.S. refusal to consider Iran's proposal to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone exposes what all the U.S. hype about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program is really about.

On the surface, Iran's proposal appears to fit U.S. aims. In fact, the U.S. used UN Security Council Resolution 687, passed in 1991, which for "establishing in the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction" as justification for its 2003 war on Iraq.

But Israel is currently the only nuclear power in the Middle East--with an arsenal of some 300 nuclear weapons. The U.S. doesn't want to eliminate nuclear weapons in the Middle East--so long as they remain in the hands of an ally.

That's why the U.S. gave a green light to Iran's nuclear program back in the 1970s, before the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran, Muhammed Reza Pahlavi, was overthrown by a popular uprising in 1979.

"The White House staffers, who are trying to deny Iran the right to develop its own nuclear energy capacity, have conveniently forgotten that the United States was the midwife to the Iranian nuclear program 30 years ago," wrote nuclear weapons expert William Beeman in January. "Every aspect of Iran's current nuclear development was approved and encouraged by Washington in the 1970s. President Gerald Ford offered Iran a full nuclear cycle in 1976, and the only reactor currently about to become operative, the reactor in Bushire, was started before the Iranian revolution with U.S. approval."

Today, the U.S. faces different circumstances--some of its own making.

The disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq not only failed to cement Washington's hold on the country's huge oil reserves and give it a strategic foothold of the Middle East, but it brought to power Shiite religious parties with ties to Iran's Shiite establishment. This inadvertently strengthened Iran's influence in Iraq and the region, creating fears in the U.S. and among its Arab allies of a "Shiite crescent," stretching from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon and Syria.

So when the U.S. raises alarms about Iran's nuclear program, it's the responsibility of the antiwar movement to raise even louder alarms about U.S. aggression.

"[B]e careful of falling into the trap of nonproliferation, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction; this is a smokescreen," said Ritter in an April interview with San Diego CityBeat. "The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change...

"It's the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn't care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam."

The U.S. wants to sell its war in Iran by using the language of nuclear disarmament. But its threats to use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike, its support for a nuclear-armed Israel and its own massive nuclear arsenal make the U.S. itself the biggest threat to peace and justice in the Middle East and around the world.

The amount of possible bonuses is to be discussed. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that the issue would be finally settled at a meeting of foreign ministers of EU member-countries in Brussels next Monday. Details will be worked out for at least one week.

Washington made an unexpected move and agreed to the proposal, strongly supporting it. "It must be a clear signal for Iranian authorities that the international community is united to convince Iran to abandon the uranium enrichment program," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "We will continue to seek for a binding UN Security Council resolution, but we will wait a couple of weeks until Europeans draft a proposal for the Iranian party, so that they are aware that they have a choice to have a civilian nuclear program," she said in an interview with ABC.

Analysts explain Washington's stance of more pragmatical arguments. The White House is sure that diplomacy will bring no results in overcoming the Iranian crisis. Two years of futile talks never convinced Teheran to give up murky nuclear developments. Iran is intransigent about creating its own atomic weapons. Aggressive statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadimejad, who first threatened to halt oil supplies to the world market and then promised to wipe Israel off the map, only backs America's determination to foil Teheran's plans by any means, including military ones.

However, America's partners at the Security Council do not share the U.S. approach fully despite the intensions of Iran that Washington clearly sees. Washington gives Europeans a carte-blanche for a peaceful solution. The world community does not demand this time that Iran curtail its nuclear program but simply buys it from Teheran. Nevertheless, the United States is sure that Iran will turn down this generous offer, which will finally prove to everyone that Iran is producing outlawed weapons, as Washington maintains, instead of building civilian energy industry, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists. Therefore even staunch defenders of Iran as Russia and China will have to agree that diplomatic means have been exhausted.

Russian Approach

The new draft Iranian resolution mentions penal measures along with "the carrot" for Teheran in case it does not accept a hand of friendship. A reference to the notorious Chapter 7 of the UN Charter is to be included on the resolution. The article describes the use of force and international sanctions for violator states. Western diplomats broadly hint that Russia and China, which vehemently opposed it, are ready for a trade-off and may agree to the reference to the punitive chapter of the UN Charter. Yet Moscow and Beijing want to specify it. They think that the reference should be made to Article 41 of Chapter 7 which envisages sanctions, but not to Article 42 that gives the go-ahead to military force. "We are very upbeat. We have never been so close in our views [on the solution to the Iranian issue]," a Western diplomat who spoke on conditions of anonymity said.

Perhaps, it is too early to be optimistic for the West. Moscow does not seem willing to lose billions of dollars after the halt of cooperation with Iran, which will surly happen if sanctions are imposed on the country. Yet both the Kremlin and the Foreign Ministry realize that they will not be able to block sanctions against Teheran without end. There is only one option left. Moscow will try to push for the sanctions that will deal the least possible blow on Russian economic interests. For instance, Russia may try to take a ban on cooperation in peaceful atomic energy out from the list to be able to complete the construction of the Bushehr nuclear plant. Military contacts will obviously have to be given up.

Still, Moscow is not going to pay for the embargo against Iran alone, Kommersant learnt. Russia already has an elegant move in store that will come as an unpleasant surprise for the West. The point is that, speaking about sanctions, European nations and the United States actually mean freezing overseas assets of Teheran, declaring Iranian leadership pesonae non grata, banning air communication with
Iran and similar steps. Moscow, in its turn, is set to discuss "a serious embargo" to put a strong pressure on Iran when debating on the list of sanctions. It means banning Iran from selling oil and gas on the world market. Russia will have double benefits in case the initiative is backed. First, the world maker will lose Iranian fuel and will response with sky-rocketing energy prices. Second, Western countries and Moscow's implacable ally, China, major consumers of Iranian oil and gas, will be at the losing end.

Iranian Solution

The Iranian president virtually confirmed Wednesday that the new initiative of European countries is only a temporary détente for the Iranian crisis. He said that Teheran will never abandon "its sovereign right to have and develop new technology." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also accused the United States and other Western countries of monopolizing the nuclear technology market. "Iranian people defend not only their right but rights of other nations as well," the Iranian president said at a D8 summit of developing countries in Indonesia.

Experts believe that Iran is determined to become a nuclear power and set to use the North Korean example to achieve it. The situation will be brought to the brink of a major crisis, which will make the United States agree to hold one-to-one negotiations with Iran. A pattern similar to six-party talks on Korean nuclear program is also possible. In any case, Teheran will win