In separate comments on National Public Radio, Rice suggested she was ready to meet her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, if Tehran agreed to suspend the activity that can be used to make nuclear arms and negotiate the details of the deal.

The package agreed on Thursday carries the threat of U.N. sanctions if Tehran remains defiant over what the West calls a rogue nuclear program that could produce a bomb. The United States, in a major policy shift, conditionally agreed this week to join those talks. It would be the first major public negotiations between the two countries in more than 25 years.

Rice met with the foreign ministers from the European nations that led talks with Iran, which stalled last year. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Russia's foreign minister and a deputy Chinese foreign minister also attended.

Russia and China might join in any future talks with Iran. Both hold vetoes in the U.N. Security Council, and the United States needs their cooperation to seek sanctions or other harsh measures.

The formal offer of talks are expected to be made by France, Britain and Germany - the three nations that previously negotiatiated with Tehran. A senior U.S. state department official said he expected Tehran would be invited to begin new negotiations "within a matter of days."

A short statement issued by foreign ministers from the six powers and the European Union did not mention economic sanctions, which the U.S. wants and Iran has tried hard to avoid.

The powers agreed privately, however, that Iran could face tough Security Council sanctions if it failed to give up unranium enrichment and other disputed nuclear activities, U.S. officials said.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called the meeting's outcome "a step forward in our quest to deny Iran nuclear weapons capability."

The U.S. intelligence director, meanwhile said Tehran could reach that status in as little as four years.

"This is a matter of assessment, we don't have a clear-cut knowledge," National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told British Broadcasting Corp. "But the estimate we have made is that some time between beginning of the next decade and the middle of the next decade they might be in a position to have a nuclear weapon."

Diplomats feared Iran would reject any offer of talks if the threat of sanctions was explicit, officials involved in the discussions said on condition of anonymity because the seven-party negotiations were private.

The foreign ministers' statement threatens unspecified "further steps" in the Security Council.

The group's statement contained no details of incentives Iran could be offered. Diplomats previously have said the package includes help to develop legitimate nuclear power plants and various economic benefits.

"We are prepared to resume negotiations should Iran resume suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities," as previously required by the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.

If Iran returns to the talks, "we would also suspend action in the Security Council," Beckett said.

The Security Council, which can levy mandatory global sanctions and support its mandates with military force, has been reviewing Iran's case for two months. Its permanent, veto-holding members have been at odds over the possibility of sanctions, with Russia and China opposed.

"At this crucial stage, it is very important that none of the sides involved in the situation makes any sharp movements that would create a threat to the real prospect of using the chance to reach agreement," ITAR-Tass quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as saying before talks began in Vienna.

Iran insists its nuclear work is peaceful and aimed at developing a new energy source.

Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, welcomed the idea of direct talks but rebuffed the U.S. condition that Tehran must suspend uranium enrichment before talks can begin.

At the White House, President George W. Bush warned that the confrontation would go to the Security Council should Iran continue to enrich uranium.

"If they continue their obstinance, if they continue to say to the world, 'We really don't care what your opinion is,' then the world is going to act in concert," Bush said.

Bush said he got a "positive response" in a telephone conversation Tuesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, adding, "We expect Russia to participate in the United Nations Security Council. We'll see whether or not they agree to do that."

Bush also spoke about Iran on Thursday with Chinese President Hu Jintao. He revealed little about that conversation, saying, "They understood our strategy."

The shift in U.S. tactics was meant to offer the Iranians a last chance to avoid punishing sanctions and to let the United States assert that it was willing to exhaust every opportunity to resolve the Iranian impasse without force.

Mr Negroponte told the BBC's Today programme that lessons had been learned from the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war on Iraq but that it was "not for him to say" if the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq made dealing with Iran more difficult.

"At the moment there's an initiative on the table with respect to Iran and we will have to watch the government of Iran's reaction to that. In the meanwhile, we have to recognise that they are the principle state sponsor of terrorism in the world. "Their behaviour has been a cause of concern, not only in Lebanon and Israel and in the Palestinian states but also in Iraq."

Asked when the war of terror would end, he said: "I think that's a hard thing to estimate. I think we are talking about something that might go on for some period of time. It may alter in its form somewhat over time.

"This is a global problem and it's gong to have to be dealt with in the many, many different countries where it occurs."

Western nations - especially the US - fear Iran is enriching uranium to create a nuclear weapon, not for civil energy use as Tehran claims.

Mr Negroponte's comments come after members of the UN security council agreed "far-reaching proposals" to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear programme.

The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, announced in Vienna last night that Iran would be offered the opportunity to reach agreement with the international community through negotiation and cooperation.

But it could expect "further steps" to be taken by the security council if it refused to come to the negotiating table, Ms Beckett said.

"We are prepared to resume negotiations should Iran resume suspension of all enrichment and reprocessing activities, as required by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and we would also suspend action in the security council.

"We have also agreed that if Iran decides not to engage in negotiation further, steps would have to be taken in the security council.

"So there are two paths ahead. We urge Iran to take the positive path and consider seriously our substantive proposals, which would bring significant benefits to Iran. We will now be talking to the Iranians about our proposals."

She was speaking following talks between the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the security council - Britain, the US, France, Russia and China - plus Germany, aimed at finding a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran.

Britain, France and Germany have been pressing for measures designed to end the deadlock. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, announced on Wednesday that the US would join direct talks with Iran if it halted nuclear activities.

But Russia and China, which both wield vetoes at the security council, have made clear they would not accept any implicit threat of the use of force.

Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.

But the propaganda damage was done, and western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews. At the recent annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group, huge screens switched between pictures of Ahmadinejad making the false "wiping off the map" statement and a ranting Hitler.

Misquoting Ahmadinejad is worse than taking Khrushchev out of context for a second reason. Although the Soviet Union had a collective leadership, the pudgy Russian was the undoubted No 1 figure, particularly on foreign policy. The Iranian president is not.

His predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, was seen in the west as a moderate reformer, and during his eight years in office western politicians regularly lamented the fact that he was not Iran's top decision-maker. Ultimate power lay with the conservative unelected supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Yet now that Ahmadinejad is president, western hawks behave as though he is in charge, when in fact nothing has changed. Ahmadinejad is not the only important voice in Tehran. Indeed Khamenei was quick to try to adjust the misperceptions of Ahmadinejad's comments. A few days after the president made them, Khamenei said Iran "will not commit aggression against any nation".

The evidence suggests that a debate is going on in Tehran over policy towards the west which is no less fierce than the one in Washington. Since 2003 the Iranians have made several overtures to the Bush administration, some more explicit than others. Ahmadinejad's recent letter to Bush was a veiled invitation to dialogue. Iranians are also arguing over policy towards Israel. Trita Parsi, an analyst at Johns Hopkins University, says influential rivals to Ahmadinejad support a "Malaysian" model whereby Iran, like Islamic Malaysia, would not recognise Israel but would not support Palestinian groups such as Hamas, if relations with the US were better.

The obvious way to develop the debate is for the two states to start talking to each other. Last winter the Americans said they were willing, provided talks were limited to Iraq. Then the hawks around Bush vetoed even that narrow agenda. Their victory made nonsense of the pressure the US is putting on other UN security council members for tough action against Iran. Talk of sanctions is clearly premature until Washington and Tehran make an effort to negotiate. This week, in advance of Condoleezza Rice's meeting in Vienna yesterday with the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, the factions in Washington hammered out a compromise. The US is ready to talk to Tehran alongside the EU3 (Britain, France and Germany), but only after Tehran has abandoned its uranium-enrichment programme.

To say the EU3's dialogue with Tehran was sufficient, as Washington did until this week, was the most astonishing example of multilateralism in the Bush presidency. A government that makes a practice of ignoring allies and refuses to accept the jurisdiction of bodies such as the International Criminal Court was leaving all the talking to others on one of the hottest issues of the day. Unless Bush is set on war, this refusal to open a dialogue could not be taken seriously.

The EU3's offer of carrots for Tehran was also meaningless without a US role. Europe cannot give Iran security guarantees. Tehran does not want non-aggression pacts with Europe. It wants them with the only state that is threatening it both with military attack and foreign-funded programmes for regime change.

The US compromise on talks with Iran is a step in the right direction, though Rice's hasty statement was poorly drafted, repeatedly calling Iran both a "government" and a "regime". But it is absurd to expect Iran to make concessions before sitting down with the Americans. Dialogue is in the interests of all parties. Europe's leaders, as well as Russia and China, should come out clearly and tell the Americans so.

Whatever Iran's nuclear ambitions, even US hawks admit it will be years before it could acquire a bomb, let alone the means to deliver it. This offers ample time for negotiations and a "grand bargain" between Iran and the US over Middle Eastern security. Flanked by countries with US bases, Iran has legitimate concerns about Washington's intentions.

Even without the US factor, instability in the Gulf worries all Iranians, whether or not they like being ruled by clerics. All-out civil war in Iraq, which could lead to intervention by Turkey and Iraq's Arab neighbours, would be a disaster for Iran. If the US wants to withdraw from Iraq in any kind of order, this too will require dialogue with Iran. If this is what Blair told Bush last week, he did well. But he should go all the way, and urge the Americans to talk without conditions.

The "system" is coming to have some of the features of failed states, to adopt a currently fashionable notion that is conventionally applied to states regarded as potential threats to our security (like Iraq) or as needing our intervention to rescue the population from severe internal threats (like Haiti). Though the concept is recognised to be, according to the journal Foreign Affairs, "frustratingly imprecise", some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified. One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out aggression and violence. And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious "democratic deficit" that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance.

Among the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and one of the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror. If we allow ourselves to do so, we should have little difficulty in finding the characteristics of "failed states" right at home.

No one familiar with history should be surprised that the growing democratic deficit in the United States is accompanied by declaration of messianic missions to bring democracy to a suffering world. Declarations of noble intent by systems of power are rarely complete fabrication, and the same is true in this case. Under some conditions, forms of democracy are indeed acceptable. Abroad, as the leading scholar-advocate of "democracy promotion" concludes, we find a "strong line of continuity": democracy is acceptable if and only if it is consistent with strategic and economic interests (Thomas Carothers). In modified form, the doctrine holds at home as well.

The basic dilemma facing policymakers is sometimes candidly recognised at the dovish liberal extreme of the spectrum, for example, by Robert Pastor, President Carter's national security adviser for Latin America. He explained why the administration had to support the murderous and corrupt Somoza regime in Nicaragua, and, when that proved impossible, to try at least to maintain the US-trained National Guard even as it was massacring the population "with a brutality a nation usually reserves for its enemy", killing some 40,000 people. The reason was the familiar one: "The United States did not want to control Nicaragua or the other nations of the region, but it also did not want developments to get out of control. It wanted Nicaraguans to act independently, except when doing so would affect US interests adversely."

Similar dilemmas faced Bush administration planners after their invasion of Iraq. They want Iraqis "to act independently, except when doing so would affect US interests adversely". Iraq must therefore be sovereign and democratic, but within limits. It must somehow be constructed as an obedient client state, much in the manner of the traditional order in Central America. At a general level, the pattern is familiar, reaching to the opposite extreme of institutional structures. The Kremlin was able to maintain satellites that were run by domestic political and military forces, with the iron fist poised. Germany was able to do much the same in occupied Europe even while it was at war, as did fascist Japan in Man-churia (its Manchukuo). Fascist Italy achieved similar results in North Africa while carrying out virtual genocide that in no way harmed its favourable image in the West and possibly inspired Hitler. Traditional imperial and neocolonial systems illustrate many variations on similar themes.

To achieve the traditional goals in Iraq has proven to be surprisingly difficult, despite unusually favourable circumstances. The dilemma of combining a measure of independence with firm control arose in a stark form not long after the invasion, as mass non-violent resistance compelled the invaders to accept far more Iraqi initiative than they had anticipated. The outcome even evoked the nightmarish prospect of a more or less democratic and sovereign Iraq taking its place in a loose Shiite alliance comprising Iran, Shiite Iraq, and possibly the nearby Shiite-dominated regions of Saudi Arabia, controlling most of the world's oil and independent of Washington.

The situation could get worse. Iran might give up on hopes that Europe could become independent of the United States, and turn eastward. Highly relevant background is discussed by Selig Harrison, a leading specialist on these topics. "The nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European Union were based on a bargain that the EU, held back by the US, has failed to honour," Harrison observes.

"The bargain was that Iran would suspend uranium enrichment, and the EU would undertake security guarantees. The language of the joint declaration was "unambiguous. 'A mutually acceptable agreement,' it said, would not only provide 'objective guarantees' that Iran's nuclear programme is 'exclusively for peaceful purposes' but would 'equally provide firm commitments on security issues.'"

The phrase "security issues" is a thinly veiled reference to the threats by the United States and Israel to bomb Iran, and preparations to do so. The model regularly adduced is Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, which appears to have initiated Saddam's nuclear weapons programs, another demonstration that violence tends to elicit violence. Any attempt to execute similar plans against Iran could lead to immediate violence, as is surely understood in Washington. During a visit to Tehran, the influential Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr warned that his militia would defend Iran in the case of any attack, "one of the strongest signs yet", the Washington Post reported, "that Iraq could become a battleground in any Western conflict with Iran, raising the spectre of Iraqi Shiite militias - or perhaps even the US-trained Shiite-dominated military - taking on American troops here in sympathy with Iran." The Sadrist bloc, which registered substantial gains in the December 2005 elections, may soon become the most powerful single political force in Iraq. It is consciously pursuing the model of other successful Islamist groups, such as Hamas in Palestine, combining strong resistance to military occupation with grassroots social organising and service to the poor.

Washington's unwillingness to allow regional security issues to be considered is nothing new. It has also arisen repeatedly in the confrontation with Iraq. In the background is the matter of Israeli nuclear weapons, a topic that Washington bars from international consideration. Beyond that lurks what Harrison rightly describes as "the central problem facing the global non-proliferation regime": the failure of the nuclear states to live up to their nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligation "to phase out their own nuclear weapons" - and, in Washington's case, formal rejection of the obligation.

Unlike Europe, China refuses to be intimidated by Washington, a primary reason for the growing fear of China on the part of US planners. Much of Iran's oil already goes to China, and China is providing Iran with weapons, presumably considered a deterrent to US threats. Still more uncomfortable for Washington is the fact that, according to the Financial Times, "the Sino-Saudi relationship has developed dramatically", including Chinese military aid to Saudi Arabia and gas exploration rights for China. By 2005, Saudi Arabia provided about 17 per cent of China's oil imports. Chinese and Saudi oil companies have signed deals for drilling and construction of a huge refinery (with Exxon Mobil as a partner). A January 2006 visit by Saudi king Abdullah to Beijing was expected to lead to a Sino-Saudi memorandum of understanding calling for "increased cooperation and investment between the two countries in oil, natural gas, and minerals".

Indian analyst Aijaz Ahmad observes that Iran could "emerge as the virtual linchpin in the making, over the next decade or so, of what China and Russia have come to regard as an absolutely indispensable Asian Energy Security Grid, for breaking Western control of the world's energy supplies and securing the great industrial revolution of Asia". South Korea and southeast Asian countries are likely to join, possibly Japan as well. A crucial question is how India will react. It rejected US pressures to withdraw from an oil pipeline deal with Iran. On the other hand, India joined the United States and the EU in voting for an anti-Iranian resolution at the IAEA, joining also in their hypocrisy, since India rejects the NPT regime to which Iran, so far, appears to be largely conforming. Ahmad reports that India may have secretly reversed its stand under Iranian threats to terminate a $20bn gas deal. Washington later warned India that its "nuclear deal with the US could be ditched" if India did not go along with US demands, eliciting a sharp rejoinder from the Indian foreign ministry and an evasive tempering of the warning by the US embassy.

The prospect that Europe and Asia might move toward greater independence has seriously troubled US planners since World War II, and concerns have significantly increased as the tripolar order has continued to evolve, along with new south-south interactions and rapidly growing EU engagement with China.

US intelligence has projected that the United States, while controlling Middle East oil for the traditional reasons, will itself rely mainly on more stable Atlantic Basin resources (West Africa, western hemisphere). Control of Middle East oil is now far from a sure thing, and these expectations are also threatened by developments in the western hemisphere, accelerated by Bush administration policies that have left the United States remarkably isolated in the global arena. The Bush administration has even succeeded in alienating Canada, an impressive feat.

Canada's minister of natural resources said that within a few years one quarter of the oil that Canada now sends to the United States may go to China instead. In a further blow to Washington's energy policies, the leading oil exporter in the hemisphere, Venezuela, has forged probably the closest relations with China of any Latin American country, and is planning to sell increasing amounts of oil to China as part of its effort to reduce dependence on the openly hostile US government. Latin America as a whole is increasing trade and other relations with China, with some setbacks, but likely expansion, in particular for raw materials exporters like Brazil and Chile.

Meanwhile, Cuba-Venezuela relations are becoming very close, each relying on its comparative advantage. Venezuela is providing low-cost oil while in return Cuba organises literacy and health programs, sending thousands of highly skilled professionals, teachers, and doctors, who work in the poorest and most neglected areas, as they do elsewhere in the Third World. Cuba-Venezuela projects are extending to the Caribbean countries, where Cuban doctors are providing healthcare to thousands of people with Venezuelan funding. Operation Miracle, as it is called, is described by Jamaica's ambassador to Cuba as "an example of integration and south-south cooperation", and is generating great enthusiasm among the poor majority. Cuban medical assistance is also being welcomed elsewhere. One of the most horrendous tragedies of recent years was the October 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. In addition to the huge toll, unknown numbers of survivors have to face brutal winter weather with little shelter, food, or medical assistance. One has to turn to the South Asian press to read that "Cuba has provided the largest contingent of doctors and paramedics to Pakistan", paying all the costs (perhaps with Venezuelan funding), and that President Musharraf expressed his "deep gratitude" for the "spirit and compassion" of the Cuban medical teams.


Some analysts have suggested that Cuba and Venezuela might even unite, a step towards further integration of Latin America in a bloc that is more independent from the United States. Venezuela has joined Mercosur, the South American customs union, a move described by Argentine president Nestor Kirchner as "a milestone" in the development of this trading bloc, and welcomed as opening "a new chapter in our integration" by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Independent experts say that "adding Venezuela to the bloc furthers its geopolitical vision of eventually spreading Mercosur to the rest of the region".

At a meeting to mark Venezuela's entry into Mercosur, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez said, "We cannot allow this to be purely an economic project, one for the elites and for the transnational companies," a not very oblique reference to the US-sponsored "Free Trade Agreement for the Americas", which has aroused strong public opposition. Venezuela also supplied Argentina with fuel oil to help stave off an energy crisis, and bought almost a third of Argentine debt issued in 2005, one element of a region-wide effort to free the countries from the control of the US-dominated IMF after two decades of disastrous effects of conformity to its rules. The IMF has "acted towards our country as a promoter and a vehicle of policies that caused poverty and pain among the Argentine people", President Kirchner said in announcing his decision to pay almost $1 trillion to rid itself of the IMF forever. Radically violating IMF rules, Argentina enjoyed a substantial recovery from the disaster left by IMF policies.

Steps toward independent regional integration advanced further with the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia in December 2005, the first president from the indigenous majority. Morales moved quickly to reach energy accords with Venezuela.

Though Central America was largely disciplined by Reaganite violence and terror, the rest of the hemisphere is falling out of control, particularly from Venezuela to Argentina, which was the poster child of the IMF and the Treasury Department until its economy collapsed under the policies they imposed. Much of the region has left-centre governments. The indigenous populations have become much more active and influential, particularly in Bolivia and Ecuador, both major energy producers, where they either want oil and gas to be domestically controlled or, in some cases, oppose production altogether. Many indigenous people apparently do not see any reason why their lives, societies, and cultures should be disrupted or destroyed so that New Yorkers can sit in SUVs in traffic gridlock. Some are even calling for an "Indian nation" in South America. Meanwhile the economic integration that is under way is reversing patterns that trace back to the Spanish conquests, with Latin American elites and economies linked to the imperial powers but not to one another. Along with growing south-south interaction on a broader scale, these developments are strongly influenced by popular organisations that are coming together in the unprecedented international global justice movements, ludicrously called "anti-globalisation" because they favour globalisation that privileges the interests of people, not investors and financial institutions. For many reasons, the system of US global dominance is fragile, even apart from the damage inflicted by Bush planners.

One consequence is that the Bush administration's pursuit of the traditional policies of deterring democracy faces new obstacles. It is no longer as easy as before to resort to military coups and international terrorism to overthrow democratically elected governments, as Bush planners learnt ruefully in 2002 in Venezuela. The "strong line of continuity" must be pursued in other ways, for the most part. In Iraq, as we have seen, mass nonviolent resistance compelled Washington and London to permit the elections they had sought to evade. The subsequent effort to subvert the elections by providing substantial advantages to the administration's favourite candidate, and expelling the independent media, also failed. Washington faces further problems. The Iraqi labor movement is making considerable progress despite the opposition of the occupation authorities. The situation is rather like Europe and Japan after World War II, when a primary goal of the United States and United Kingdom was to undermine independent labour movements - as at home, for similar reasons: organised labour contributes in essential ways to functioning democracy with popular engagement. Many of the measures adopted at that time - withholding food, supporting fascist police - are no longer available. Nor is it possible today to rely on the labour bureaucracy of the American Institute for Free Labor Development to help undermine unions. Today, some American unions are supporting Iraqi workers, just as they do in Colombia, where more union activists are murdered than anywhere in the world. At least the unions now receive support from the United Steelworkers of America and others, while Washington continues to provide enormous funding for the government, which bears a large part of the responsibility.

The problem of elections arose in Palestine much in the way it did in Iraq. As already discussed, the Bush administration refused to permit elections until the death of Yasser Arafat, aware that the wrong man would win. After his death, the administration agreed to permit elections, expecting the victory of its favoured Palestinian Authority candidates. To promote this outcome, Washington resorted to much the same modes of subversion as in Iraq, and often before. Washington used the US Agency for International Development as an "invisible conduit" in an effort to "increase the popularity of the Palestinian Authority on the eve of crucial elections in which the governing party faces a serious challenge from the radical Islamic group Hamas" (Washington Post), spending almost $2m "on dozens of quick projects before elections this week to bolster the governing Fatah faction's image with voters" (New York Times). In the United States, or any Western country, even a hint of such foreign interference would destroy a candidate, but deeply rooted imperial mentality legitimates such routine measures elsewhere. However, the attempt to subvert the elections again resoundingly failed.

The US and Israeli governments now have to adjust to dealing somehow with a radical Islamic party that approaches their traditional rejectionist stance, though not entirely, at least if Hamas really does mean to agree to an indefinite truce on the international border as its leaders state. The US and Israel, in contrast, insist that Israel must take over substantial parts of the West Bank (and the forgotten Golan Heights). Hamas's refusal to accept Israel's "right to exist" mirrors the refusal of Washington and Jerusalem to accept Palestine's "right to exist" - a concept unknown in international affairs; Mexico accepts the existence of the United States but not its abstract "right to exist" on almost half of Mexico, acquired by conquest. Hamas's formal commitment to "destroy Israel" places it on a par with the United States and Israel, which vowed formally that there could be no "additional Palestinian state" (in addition to Jordan) until they relaxed their extreme rejectionist stand partially in the past few years, in the manner already reviewed. Although Hamas has not said so, it would come as no great surprise if Hamas were to agree that Jews may remain in scattered areas in the present Israel, while Palestine constructs huge settlement and infrastructure projects to take over the valuable land and resources, effectively breaking Israel up into unviable cantons, virtually separated from one another and from some small part of Jerusalem where Jews would also be allowed to remain. And they might agree to call the fragments "a state". If such proposals were made, we would - rightly - regard them as virtually a reversion to Nazism, a fact that might elicit some thoughts. If such proposals were made, Hamas's position would be essentially like that of the United States and Israel for the past five years, after they came to tolerate some impoverished form of "statehood". It is fair to describe Hamas as radical, extremist, and violent, and as a serious threat to peace and a just political settlement. But the organisation is hardly alone in this stance.

Elsewhere traditional means of undermining democracy have succeeded. In Haiti, the Bush administration's favourite "democracy-building group, the International Republican Institute", worked assiduously to promote the opposition to President Aristide, helped by the withholding of desperately needed aid on grounds that were dubious at best. When it seemed that Aristide would probably win any genuine election, Washington and the opposition chose to withdraw, a standard device to discredit elections that are going to come out the wrong way: Nicaragua in 1984 and Venezuela in December 2005 are examples that should be familiar. Then followed a military coup, expulsion of the president, and a reign of terror and violence vastly exceeding anything under the elected government.

The persistence of the strong line of continuity to the present again reveals that the United States is very much like other powerful states. It pursues the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors of the domestic population, to the accompaniment of rhetorical flourishes about its dedication to the highest values. That is practically a historical universal, and the reason why sensible people pay scant attention to declarations of noble intent by leaders, or accolades by their followers.

One commonly hears that carping critics complain about what is wrong, but do not present solutions. There is an accurate translation for that charge: "They present solutions, but I don't like them." In addition to the proposals that should be familiar about dealing with the crises that reach to the level of survival, a few simple suggestions for the United States have already been mentioned: 1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; 2) sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols; 3) let the UN take the lead in international crises; 4) rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror; 5) keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter; 6) give up the Security Council veto and have "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centres disagree; 7) cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending. For people who believe in democracy, these are very conservative suggestions: they appear to be the opinions of the majority of the US population, in most cases the overwhelming majority. They are in radical opposition to public policy. To be sure, we cannot be very confident about the state of public opinion on such matters because of another feature of the democratic deficit: the topics scarcely enter into public discussion and the basic facts are little known. In a highly atomised society, the public is therefore largely deprived of the opportunity to form considered opinions.

Another conservative suggestion is that facts, logic, and elementary moral principles should matter. Those who take the trouble to adhere to that suggestion will soon be led to abandon a good part of familiar doctrine, though it is surely much easier to repeat self-serving mantras. Such simple truths carry us some distance toward developing more specific and detailed answers. More important, they open the way to implement them, opportun- ities that are readily within our grasp if we can free ourselves from the shackles of doctrine and imposed illusion.

Though it is natural for doctrinal systems to seek to induce pessimism, hopelessness, and despair, reality is different. There has been substantial progress in the unending quest for justice and freedom in recent years, leaving a legacy that can be carried forward from a higher plane than before. Opportunities for education and organising abound. As in the past, rights are not likely to be granted by benevolent authorities, or won by intermittent actions - attending a few demonstrations or pushing a lever in the personalised quadrennial extravaganzas that are depicted as "democratic politics". As always in the past, the tasks require dedicated day-by-day engagement to create - in part recreate - the basis for a functioning democratic culture in which the public plays some role in determining policies, not only in the political arena, from which it is largely excluded, but also in the crucial economic arena, from which it is excluded in principle. There are many ways to promote democracy at home, carrying it to new dimensions. Opportunities are ample, and failure to grasp them is likely to have ominous repercussions: for the country, for the world, and for future generations.

This is an edited extract from Failed States by Noam Chomsky (Hamish Hamilton)

It took the United States months of behind the scenes wrangling to persuade the UN Security Council to even consider Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons programs. Iran tried to prevent this by offering to allow surprise inspections on any facility suspected of covert nuclear activity. Iran is not required to do this under the terms of the NPT, but volunteered as a way of building confidence among the member states. The Bush administration, which made this a vital part of earlier demands, rejected the offer outright saying that Iran's concession would not be enough to end the standoff.

A similar incident took place just weeks earlier when Iran was finalizing the details of an agreement with Russia to enrich uranium outside of the country. Iran figured that this would allay US fears that it was secretively developing nuclear weapons.

Again, the Bush administration rejected this "good will" gesture as insufficient, while Condi Rice scoffed at the idea as a trick. These are just latest examples of Iran's efforts to find a peaceful way to placate Washington. The administration is not interested in concessions or settlements. It is simply building the case for punitive action or war.

Despite growing pressure from the administration, the Security Council has not agreed on a resolution condemning Iran's nuclear programs. So far, Iran has cooperated fully with the IAEA and there's simply no evidence of non compliance. It took an enormous effort by the Bush administration to push a feeble "non-binding presidential statement" through the Council. The statement neither endorses economic sanctions nor military action. It is a toothless declaration that is utterly meaningless except for its use in fueling the propaganda campaign against the Islamic regime.

The administration has hit a road-block at the Security Council. Their appeal for decisive action is going nowhere.

Last week, Secretary of State Rice said, "Security guarantees for Iran were off the table". Her announcement reveals the true depth of America's inflexibility and the unlikelihood of a peaceful solution. If the United States refuses to sign a "non aggression pact", then what incentive is there for Iran to abandon its nuclear programs? After all, Iran has the "inalienable right" to enrich uranium under the NPT. Shouldn't that at least be a bargaining chip for negotiations with the US?

The administration's hardnosed approach precludes any future compromise. Their stubbornness only makes sense if the ultimate objective is war, which appears to be where Washington is headed.

If we compare the present situation to the lead up to the war in Iraq, we can assume that the war plans are already underway. The maneuverings at the UN are just a facade to conceal the movement of military hardware and troops. Once the logistical work is done, the administration will create a pretext for attacking Iran just as it did with Iraq. Rice's globe-trotting diplomacy means nothing; it's Cheney and Rumsfeld who will decide when the time is right.

The administration sees non-aggression treaties as a sign of weakness unworthy of a superpower. As stated in its National Security Strategy (NSS) the United States reserves the right to attack any nation that may challenge its national interests or its global supremacy. Iran is the next domino to establishing permanent American hegemony. Controlling the oil resources of the Caspian Basin and removing regional rivals to Israel remain the fundamental goals of Bush's global resource war. This makes a military confrontation with Iran inevitable. It is absurd to expect the Bush administration will seriously negotiate when their final purpose is regime change.

In a recent article in Counterpunch, "Embedded Journalism and the Disinformation Campaign for War on Iran", Gary Leupp notes that the same cadres of neocons who misled the nation into war with Iraq have been reassembled in the Pentagon to repeat their success against Iran. Under the rubric of "The Office of Iranian Affairs"; Abram Shulsky, Elizabeth Cheney and other far-right hawks fill out a roster of pro-war advocates. Their task is to prepare the country for war by generating fear and suspicion of Iran's imaginary weapons programs. The group's influence is probably similar to that of Judith Miller who was allowed to spout her bogus claims about Iraqi WMD from headlines across the country. In this case, however, the intention is to omit the critical facts about Iran's activities rather than simply inventing false allegations.

For example, the media invariably excludes the important details about Iran's programs that would allow American's to form an educated opinion. These are:

1 The IAEA has consistently said that there is "no evidence" that Iran has a nuclear weapons program or is diverting nuclear material from its research.

2 Iran has been in full compliance with all its treaty obligations for 3 years although it has undergone the most intensive inspection regime in the history of the IAEA.

3 The UN Security Council reaffirmed Iran's "inalienable right" to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and did not order Iran to suspend nuclear enrichment as was falsely reported in the news.

4 The United States has violated its obligations under the NPT by developing a new regime of "bunker busting" low yield nuclear weapons.

5 That the United States is violating the UN Charter by unilaterally threatening a sovereign nation which is not in breach of any UN resolution.

These are the fundamental facts that the American people need to know to make an informed judgment about the present confrontation. Instead, the media simply reiterates the specious claims of government officials without regard to either international law (NPT) or the findings of the UN watchdog agency, the IAEA. We must assume that the media is working with high-ranking officials in The Office of Iranian Affairs to produce news that is so obviously skewed in favor of the administration. After all, their entire raison d'etre is to create the rationale for moving the country to war.

A growing number of American elites are uneasy with the precipitous decline of American prestige as well as the reckless approach to foreign policy. Henry Kissinger has joined Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Chuck Hegel and other CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) luminaries to pressure the Bush administration to open a direct dialogue with Iran. Until today, Bush showed no sign that he would do so. Despite the many setbacks in Iraq, the "war president" still appears to be entirely under the spell of VP Dick Cheney and Sec-Def Donald Rumsfeld. Regrettably, there's no indication that Rumsfeld or Cheney are the least bit affected by the widening divisions in elite-opinion. They are in complete control of the policy-making apparatus and should be expected to execute their war plan regardless of its unpopularity or its long-term consequences.

In a recent article by Gareth Porter "Iran Proposal to US offered Peace with Israel", the author reports that in 2003 Iran not only offered "to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups" but made a "two-page proposal for a broad US-Iran agreement covering all the issues facing the two countries". The secret document that was provided to IPS proves that Iran is neither committed to the destruction of Israel nor to the continued sponsorship of terrorist groups.

.

"What the Iranians wanted in return," Porter says, " was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region" They want to see a "halt in hostile US behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the US" as well as "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity." (ISP)

Respect and security; the same demands that one expects from any reasonable sovereign nation.

"In 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel." (IPS)

This implies that the decision to attack Iran must have been made in the earliest years of the Bush administration. (Perhaps, even before Bush took office as indicated in the Project for the New American Century)

Will there be a war with Iran?

The UK Herald reported two weeks ago ("US spells out plan to bomb Iran", Ian Bruce) that "the US is updating contingency plans for a strike to cripple Iran's atomic weapon program if international diplomacy fails....The plan calls for a rolling, five-day bombing campaign against 400 key targets, including 24 nuclear-related sites, 14 military airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters."

If there is an invasion it will probably be limited to securing the region of Khuzestan which is adjacent to Iraq's southern flank and contains 90% of Iran's oil wealth as well as much of its natural gas. This could be achieved with as little as 15-20,000 combat troops, plus a backup of Special Forces. The rest could be accomplished by aerial bombardments of military installations, radar, artillery placements, missile silos, nuclear sites and Republican Guard facilities. Needless to say, there are not "400 nuclear targets" in Iran. The Herald article implies that the Pentagon is anticipating a "Serbia-type" attack which disrupts major industry, oil production and civilian infrastructure. This strategy has been described in great detail by author John Pilger in his article "Calling the Kosovo Humanitarians to Account" Pilger states:

"NATO's civilian targets included public transport, hospitals, schools, museums, churches. ..bombing bridges on Sunday afternoons and market places."

Citing the goal of opening the region to a "free-market economy", Pilger notes how NATO intentionally targeted state owned businesses to bring Kosovo into the global economic paradigm and remove any stain of its socialist past. Pilger says:

"In the bombing campaign that followed, it was state-owned companies, rather than military sites, that were targeted. NATO's destruction of only 14 Yugoslav army tanks compares with its bombing of 372 centers of industry, including the Zastava car factory, leaving hundreds of thousands jobless. Not one foreign or privately owned factory was bombed."

We expect that the same basic model will be applied to Iran, although the assault will be papered-over by the "state-media franchise" (the "free press") Iran has no nuclear weapons programs and Washington knows it. It is being prepared for "economic reform" and "structural readjustment" so that it can be included into the prevailing system of predatory capital and satisfy the west's ravenous appetite for cheap oil and new markets.

US carrier groups are already moving to the Gulf and the finishing touches are being put on the battle plans. Lt General Sam Gardiner expects that an attack will come as early as June 2006.