Who could possibly have an interest in attacking the American embassy? The attack failed because of the intervention of the Syrian forces, combined with the apparently primitive character of the explosives used by the attackers. If it had succeeded, however, the most likely consequence would have been a sharp increase in pressure directed against Syria by the United States government. This would have played into the hands of sections of the American establishment who have been pushing for military actions against Syria and/or Iran.

In an article in Time magazine posted yesterday, Scott Macleod noted that, while the Syrian regime has come into conflict with the US, it would have no interest in seeing the attack carried through. "Assad's regime knows that could be a casus belli for a US military strike on Syria," he wrote. "Relations have been tense for years. The US recalled its ambassador in Damascus after Syria, despite its denials, was implicated in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in February 2005." The assassination of Hariri itself is highly suspicious, and it is not possible to rule out Israeli or US involvement in that incident as well.

What seems least likely is that the attack on the American embassy was simply the product of a few individuals, motivated purely by hatred of the United States and American policy. Of course this cannot be entirely eliminated as a possibility, but it is in the nature of such organizations as Jund al-Sham that they are heavily infiltrated and are extremely susceptible to the manipulations of this or that outside power.

Both American and Israeli intelligence agencies have a long history of manipulating these groups. Jund al-Sham was reportedly established in alliance with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with funds provided by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1999. At the time, the US was still doing deals with the Taliban and the Islamic fundamentalists of Afghanistan as part of its efforts to secure a gas pipeline through the country.

Since its founding, Jund al-Sham has shown little interest in the United States, directing its attacks mainly against the Syrian government because of the latter's secular orientation. It has also targeted Syria's ally, Hezbollah.

In considering the events of September 12, 2006, it should be recalled that the attacks five years ago were carried out by individuals, known by American intelligence agencies to be members of Al Qaeda, who were allowed to freely enter and exit the United States, take flight training classes and purchase one-way, first class tickets on major airlines-all in the face of mounting intelligence indicating that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack airplanes and attack the United States. It is almost certain that sections of the American intelligence and political apparatus were aware of an impending attack but decided to let it take place-in order to establish a pretext for carrying out important US policy goals.

During the past several weeks, there have been several events to remind us of the extremely useful role that Al Qaeda plays in furthering the interests of American imperialism. In a number of his speeches leading up to the September 11 anniversary, Bush reproduced statements, supposedly from Osama bin Laden, declaring Iraq-conveniently enough-to be the centerpiece in the struggle for the "Islamic caliphate." This of course is quite useful for the US government, which would like to continue to portray the brutal occupation of Iraq as part of the "war on terror," and would like to continue to link this occupation, in spite of all contrary evidence, to the attacks of September 11.

Then, shortly before the anniversary, a new tape emerges depicting Osama bin Laden greeting some of the September 11 hijackers prior to the attacks: Another convenient reminder that the "war on terror" continues.

The Democrats occasionally denounce the Bush administration for failing to capture or kill bin Laden. They do this in order to present themselves as the more consistent advocates of the "war on terror." No one bothers to suggest that perhaps the main reason he has not been captured or killed is that he continues to be a very useful asset of the Central Intelligence Agency. It was the CIA, after all, that fostered him in the 1980s as part of the proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Now there is an attack on Syria, apparently organized by a similarly shady and amorphous outfit with ties to bin Laden. It comes at a time of increasing crisis within the American political establishment. The occupation of Iraq is in deep crisis. Democratic and Republican commentators alike are calling for more American troops to deal with the Shia militias in the south and the Sunni organizations in the west. Israel's invasion of Lebanon has been a debacle, and only served to increase the prestige of Hezbollah and strengthen the hand of Iran in the region.

Major divisions are beginning to emerge between Europe and the US over Iranian policy, with the EU-bolstered by the US-Israeli disaster in Lebanon-seeking to make its own accommodation with the regime in Tehran. At the same time, there is growing opposition and skepticism within the United States, as broad sections of the population are beginning to reject the whole fraud of the "war on terror," and the President's speech on the fifth anniversary is striking largely in its completely unreal and unbelievable rhetoric.

There is a significant section of the US ruling elite that considers the only "solution" to these problems to be a massive escalation of US aggression-including attacks on Iran and Syria and the complete militarization of American society. In the furtherance of these aims, an attack on an American embassy in Syria would be quite convenient indeed.

This is not to suggest that the attackers on Tuesday were themselves working for sections of US intelligence. Individually, they were likely motivated by a combination of anger over American intervention in the Middle East, combined with the reactionary ideology of Islamic fundamentalism. Such actions are organized more tangentially, and the individuals who are directly involved have no idea who is manipulating them. The extremely bungled character of the operation-which failed to even penetrate the embassy walls-suggests that those involved in the direct planning were highly inexperienced.

Whether or not it could serve as a casus belli for attacking Syria, the attack would-and even it its failure still does-allow the administration to argue that the war on terror is not over, thereby justifying the administration's policy and Bush's speech on Monday. It also allows them to step up pressure on Syria.

Indeed, aside from the obligatory remarks of appreciation for Syria's actions in foiling the attack, this was the main tenor of administration comments on Tuesday. "Stop harboring terrorist groups, stop being an agent in fomenting terror," White House spokesman Tony Snow declared. "Work with us to fight against terror, as Libya has done-that's the next step for Syria." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the attacks demonstrated that terrorists can still attack diplomatic facilities anywhere, in spite of "an extraordinary effort" to prevent them.

Of course one cannot rule out other possibilities to US involvement, and there are many possibilities. However, in such cases one is entitled to speculate.

"They believe it has destabilized the region," said the secretary-general. "It cannot stay and it cannot leave."

Annan said many leaders believed the United States should stay until Iraq improves while others, such as Iran, said it should leave immediately.

Iran had offered to help the United States leave but did not go into details, Annan added.

The UN chief's two-week tour to the region, with the focus on rallying support for Security Council Resolution 1701 ending the monthlong Israel-Hezbollah conflict, also took him to Iran, currently locked in a bitter nuclear standoff with the West.

"I'm not going to engage in a further disputation with the secretary general of the United Nations, but we disagree with the characterization," White House spokesman Tony Snow said, while acknowledging "sectarian violence" in Iraq.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who visited the Middle East recently, told reporters earlier in the day that the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath were "a real disaster" for the region.

"Most of the leaders I spoke to felt the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them," Annan said. "They believe it has destabilized the region."

"As of February next year, over 1,000 Polish soldiers are going to be serving in Afghanistan," said Polish Defense Minister Radoslaw Sikorski Wednesday evening in Washington, according to media reports.

"It will be a mechanized battalion that will be stationed at Bagram, where 100 of our soldiers are. We are going to take part in operations primarily in the eastern part of Afghanistan."

Polish defense ministry spokesman Leszek Laszczak said, "Poland will increase its contingent in Afghanistan. We will send 1,000 additional troops from February."

The soldiers will do a one year tour of duty, starting February 2007, Laszczak added. He also said a Polish general will become a deputy commander of the International Security Assistance Force(ISAF).

Last week, leading NATO military commanders called for 2,000-2,500 additional soldiers to plug shortfalls in the alliance's force in Afghanistan, which has met strong resistance from the resurgent Taliban guerrillas along Afghanistan's southern border.

But a NATO spokesman said on Wednesday member countries had failed to respond to the military commander's call for reinforcements.

NATO nations currently have around 18,500 troops in Afghanistan with other non-NATO countries contributing a further 1,500 to the ISAF.

The alliance has asked for the soldiers to be available immediately, and it was not clear whether the Polish contribution would plug the gap.

Sikorski and Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski are in Washington for talks with U.S. leaders.

The country is the first to commit extra troops to the NATO force. It also has around 900 soldiers stationed in Baghdad.

It said the report falsely described Iran to have enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April, whereas IAEA inspectors had made clear Iran had enriched only to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.

"Furthermore, the IAEA Secretariat takes strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons, it said.

The letter said the congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" that the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.

Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.

The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's nuclear program since 2003. Although it has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many previously concealed activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said: "We felt obliged to put the record straight with regard to the facts on what we have reported on Iran. It's a matter of the integrity of the IAEA."

Diplomats say Washington, spearheading efforts to isolate Iran with sanctions over its nuclear work, has long perceived ElBaradei to be "soft" on Tehran.

"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations.

Speaking at the meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors, Iranian Ambassador to the Agency Ali Asghar Soltanie said that Iran's nuclear program and activities were "exclusively for peaceful purposes."

The Iranian diplomat hit out at the U.S. for describing sanctions as acts of diplomacy in the same way it had called its "unilateral military invasion" of Iraq an act of "multilateral diplomacy." He added that the decision to refer Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council was based on "ridiculous motivation."

Douste-Blazy called for a sustained effort to engage Tehran in dialogue and warned that otherwise there would be "a growing drive -- on either side -- towards confrontation, (and) the international community would split."

Six world powers have proposed Iran talks on a package of benefits if it first suspends enrichment.

In Tehran, foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said: "The United States only needs to be a little patient to prove its honesty on welcoming talks under the current circumstances."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday in Dakar that he doubted the United Nations Security Council would impose sanctions over his country's nuclear program, which Western countries fear aims to build atomic weapons.

"We are supporters of dialogue and negotiation and there is no reason for sanctions," Ahmadinejad told journalists.

In Vienna, Iran's ambassador to the watchdog
International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh urged the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors to use its influence to help "commence the negotiation, without any precondition and without further delay."

Soltanieh challenged the US ambassador to an "open-ended" debate on Washington's call for UN sanctions over Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

"I am fully prepared ... (for) a debate with the US ambassador in order to prove ... that allegations are baseless and the Islamic Republic of Iran is (the) victim of neglect, discrimination and double standards," Soltanieh said.

Soltanieh's challenge echoed Ahmadinejad's call in August on US President George W. Bush to debate. US officials refused this, calling the offer a public relations gimmick.

Soltanieh said that Washington's presenting sanctions as diplomacy was equivalent to describing "unilateral military invasion in Iraq as 'multilateral diplomacy.'"

US ambassador Gregory Schulte had Wednesday told the IAEA board, which Thursday wrapped up a meeting that had begun Monday, that "Iran's refusal to suspend and its refusal to cooperate is a choice of confrontation over one of negotiation."

Schulte and European speakers urged Iran to choose negotiations over UN sanctions, but said the key to this was Tehran first suspending enrichment.

EU-Iran talks stalled Thursday, when a meeting planned between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani was postponed. Their aides met in Geneva Thursday.

Soltanieh said there was "no problem. The only thing is both sides (need) to find the best appropriate time and venue.

"Therefore everything is on the right track."

Solana and Larijani had held talks described as "constructive" last weekend in Vienna, raising hopes this would lead to negotiations with the six world powers, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

The United States, which charges that Iran is engaged in secret work to make nuclear weapons, is pushing for Security Council sanctions against Iran for failing to honor a Council resolution that set an August 31 deadline for Tehran to halt enrichment.

Larijani had offered to consider a temporary halt in uranium enrichment in talks with Solana in Vienna last Saturday, diplomats said.

But they noted that this was only an offer to consider a halt, not to implement it, and that there were conditions attached such as the UN ceasing action against Iran which made it unacceptable to the West.