According to the magazine, no one in Washington is talking about a ground invasion of Iran, as was carried out in Iraq or Afghanistan. According to the report, the American goal in case of an offensive will be to delay the Iranian nuclear plan, an operation which can be carried out from the air.

Goal: Delaying nuclear plan by 2 to 3 years

The attack, the Time says, will be limited to the nuclear facilities in Iran and will be aimed at 18 to 30 different facilities connected to the nuclear program. The sites are spread across the country, some of them exposed, some operating under the guise of regular plants, and others buried deep under the ground.

Sources in the Pentagon told the magazine that among the sites the Americans are familiar with are 1,500 targets for an attack. In other words, the military offensive requires activating nearly all types of planes in the army's possession: Warplanes and stealth vehicles, F-15 and F-16 aircrafts taking off from the land and an F-18 which takes off from an aircraft carrier.

Such an attack requires using satellite-guided weapons and laser-guided ammunition, as well as spy planes and unmanned aerial vehicles. Since many targets are hidden underground and are reinforced with armed concrete, they will have to be hit once and again in order to guarantee that they are destroyed, or at least severely damaged.

Submarines and American battleships will be able to launch cruise missiles, but the Time says that the warheads in this case are small and are not enough to cause damage to the concrete. Therefore, they will be used for other targets.

An American attack in Iran may take a few days, with hundreds and maybe thousands of sorties. According to the report, it will help in delaying the Iranian nuclear program by two to the three years.

"Coupled with the CNO's request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed - but until now largely theoretical - prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran," according to a special report in Time magazine.

The U.S. military routinely makes plans for many different scenarios, and the vast majority of them will never be carried out.

"And yet from the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown with Iran - over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons, its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of the world's richest oil region - may be impossible to avoid," Time reports.

The magazine's reporters interviewed dozens of experts and government officials to find out what an attack on Iran would consist of - and what its repercussions might be.

First of all, most observers believe the attack would not involve ground forces and would instead be a massive air campaign against Iran's 18 to 30 nuclear-related facilities.

But many of the targets are hardened, and would have to be struck repeatedly to ensure that they were destroyed or severely damaged. Some sites are in populated areas, and civilian casualties would be a certainty, according to Time. And there would be no guarantee that the strikes would destroy all nuclear-related sites, because some sites could be undiscovered.

What's more, the attacks would spark retaliation from Iran that could include ordering a Hezbollah attack on Israel and stepping up the funneling of money and weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq.

The likelihood that Iran would also seek to close the Strait of Hormuz is high, and a disruption of the oil supplies flowing through the strait could send oil prices skyrocketing. That in turn could spur a stepped-up military effort by the U.S. that could even include the "worst case" use of ground forces in an effort to topple the Iranian regime, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni told Time.

For that reason, Zinni believes an attack on Iran is a "dumb idea."

And that is why the U.S. has sought to emphasize a possible diplomatic solution, Time concludes. One Bush administration official told the magazine:

"Nobody is considering a military option at this point. We're trying to prevent a situation in which the President finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."

President Bush, who addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, has said he prefers diplomacy to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but he hasn't ruled out using military force.

Several former U.S. defense officials who maintain close ties to the Pentagon say they've been told that plans for airstrikes - if Bush deems them necessary - are being updated.

The leader of a Persian Gulf country who visited Washington recently came away without receiving assurances he sought that the military option was off the table, said a person with direct knowledge of the meetings.

"It seems like Iran is becoming the new Iraq," said one U.S. counterterrorism official.

This official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the information involved is classified.

But one facet of the dispute broke into public view in recent days.

The International Atomic Energy Agency complained in an unusual letter made public on Thursday that a House intelligence committee report on Iran contains "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information."

A top official of the IAEA, which conducts nuclear inspections in Iran and elsewhere, wrote that the report exaggerated advances Tehran has made in enriching uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear arms if made pure enough. The official, Vilmos Cserveny, said the report also falsely claimed that IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei had removed an inspector from Iran for being too aggressive.

Cserveny's letter was addressed to intelligence committee chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.

Hoekstra spokesman Jamal Ware said that the reference to weapons-grade uranium in the report was in a photo caption, but that the report makes clear elsewhere that Iran has not yet achieved that capability.

Committee aides say the report was meant to provoke discussion about Iran and wasn't a call for exaggerated intelligence.

The dispute was a virtual rerun of the months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, when ElBaradei and his agency questioned claims that Saddam Hussein was aggressively seeking nuclear weapons. Some top U.S. officials sought to discredit ElBaradei, although the IAEA's assessment proved correct.

The IAEA's written protest, dated Tuesday, was echoed privately by U.S. intelligence analysts, who saw the House report as an attempt to discredit the CIA and other agencies on Iran.

The situations with Iran now and Iraq four years ago, when Bush and his aides were making the case for war, aren't completely parallel.

Even officials and foreign countries that were skeptical about Iraq agree that Iran is probably seeking a nuclear weapon. And there is widespread consensus that Tehran is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

But there are sharp differences over Iran's capabilities and actions.

Some officials at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department said they're concerned that the offices of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney may be receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles, including a discredited arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, who played a role in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.

Officials at all three agencies said they suspect that the dubious information may include claims that Iran directed Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, to kidnap two Israeli soldiers in July; that Iran's nuclear program is moving faster than generally believed; and that the Iranian people are eager to join foreign efforts to overthrow their theocratic rulers.

The officials said there is no reliable intelligence to support any of those assertions and some that contradicts all three.

The officials said they fear a replay of the administration's mishandling of what turned out to be bogus information from Iraqi exiles in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, documented earlier this month in a Senate intelligence committee report.

But they said this time, intelligence analysts and others are more forcefully challenging claims they believe to be false or questionable.

"There's no question that people are less afraid to speak up after what happened in Iraq," said one intelligence official. "There's less of an inclination to let Cheney and Rumsfeld run free."

It is, said a second U.S. intelligence official, "a little more difficult to try to put forward a one-sided view." Analysts "are not willing to be rolled over," he said.

On Hezbollah, officials say they have fought to tone down administration public statements and internal briefing papers about Iran's complicity in the attack on Israel, which sparked a month-long war.

"They're just basically saying all kinds of wacky stuff," said the first counter-terrorism official. "Now Iran is (said to be) responsible for everything Hezbollah does."

Iran is widely believed to be arming, funding and helping train Hezbollah as its proxy among Lebanon's Shiite Muslims. But a majority of analysts believe Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah maintains quite a bit of independence.

"No one says that Hezbollah is completely independent," said a U.S. intelligence official. But, "I'm not sure anyone thinks Iran ordered the kidnapping of the Israelis."

Adding to the unease, Rumsfeld's office earlier this year set up a new Iranian directorate, reported to be under the leadership of neoconservatives who played a role in planning the Iraq war.

Current and former officials said the Pentagon's Iranian directorate has been headed by Abram Shulsky. Shulsky also was the head of the now-defunct Office of Special Plans, whose role in allegedly manipulating Iraq intelligence is under investigation by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Some officials say they fear the office, whose existence was first reported by the Los Angeles Times, is being used to funnel intelligence from Ghorbanifar, the arms dealer, and an Iranian exile group known as the Mujahedeen Khalq.

A Pentagon spokeswoman didn't return two phone calls seeking comment about the office.

Bill Murray, a retired CIA station chief in Paris who met with a Ghorbanifar associate and found his claims about Iran to be bogus, called the office's establishment "a big bell ringer."

"That is outright manipulation of information to suggest a predetermined policy," Murray said.

U.S. officials said that, undeterred by setbacks in Iraq war and the Palestinian territories, Bush would stress his so-called "Freedom Agenda" of aggressively promoting democracy, calling the Middle East "the central battlefield."

"The president ... will lay out his positive vision for the Middle East, the bright, democratic future that we see for the Middle East in contra-distinction to some who have almost a backward-looking vision for that region," a senior administration official told reporters.

Annan pointedly countered that optimism last week when he said after touring the Middle East that most leaders in the region thought the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein had been a "disaster."

The indirect clash between Bush and the hard-line Iranian leader comes at a sensitive moment in a stand-off over Iran's nuclear ambitions, as the European Union tries to coax Tehran into suspending uranium enrichment to allow for negotiations.

The United States and Iran have no relations and Washington has said it will enter talks with Iran only if the Islamic Republic halts sensitive nuclear work which the West suspects is aimed at developing an atom bomb.

SANCTIONS?

The Bush administration is calling for sanctions after Iran defied an August 31 U.N. deadline to halt enrichment, but European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said it would be wrong to push such a resolution when the EU was making "real progress" in talks with Tehran.

Solana told Spanish-speaking reporters he would meet with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, in New York on the sidelines of this week's U.N. General Assembly session.

Asked in an interview with Time magazine why Iran would not suspend enrichment as a confidence-building measure, Ahmadinejad said: "Whose confidence should be built?"

A high-ranking IDF officer revealed to the Post that Israel's Home Front Command (HFC) is now developing new technological means to deal with chemical and biological threats, including mobile air-purification containers that can be brought to areas infected by chemical or biological weapons and purify the air.

HFC's focus was shifted partially because the defense establishment believed that following the war in Lebanon, Israel was facing a major threat from ballistic missiles.

During the war, there were some 4,000 missiles fired at northern Israel. It was estimated that missiles from Iran have a range of between 1,550 to 1,620 km and can carry a 500 to 650 kg warhead.

"As it was demonstrated during the war in Lebanon, the other side is investing all of its resources in missiles," a high-ranking IDF officer was quoted as saying on Monday.

"We therefore need to provide answers to deal with this threat offensively but also defensively, once the missiles are already launched," he added.

According to the IDF's assessment, facing a nuclear Iran, Israel will find itself in a "lose-lose situation."

"If Iran is attacked, long-range missiles will land in Israel," a senior defense official said. "If, on the other hand, nothing is done militarily, Israel will find itself under a constant nuclear threat from Iran."

"Thus, President Ahmadinejad dispatched his senior advisor Hashemi Samareh to France," he continued, saying that during his talks with various French officials, including President Jacque Chirac, Samareh has exchanged views about enhancement of cooperation through optimum utilization of the two states' potentials.

Elham further described Samareh's negotiations with the French officials as positive and useful, asserting that the talks have paved a proper and convenient ground for the development of ties.

Elsewhere, he referred to Iran's nuclear issue and mentioned, "What we have presented as our response to the EU's package of proposals included this very main point that the two sides can resolve the issue through reasonable negotiations and in compliance with the international rules and laws."

The Spokesman viewed Iran-West talks as positive, saying that Tehran perceives a desirable prospect for the present trend of negotiations as there resides no restriction in the way of talks.

Describing time-bound suspension as a misunderstanding, he stressed once more that nuclear talks must be free from prerequisite.

Elham rejected reports that Iran could agree to the short-term suspension of its enrichment activities for the resumption of nuclear talks with the west, reiterating that such a notion was a result of a "misunderstanding."

He said, "Iran has made no decision whatsoever to suspend enrichment," but meantime stressed that all issues pertinent to Iran's nuclear case "can be raised in the negotiations."

Asked about the possibility of a meeting between the Iranian and American Presidents during the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York, the Government Spokesman reminded, "The issue at work is not negotiation or talks, rather there could be a debate between President Ahmadinejad and his American counterpart George W Bush, and when it comes to debating, where else could be a better place than the United Nations?"

In response to the recent insulting statements by Pope Benedict XVI against the religion of Islam, he reminded the rich and historical culture of Islam, and stressed that the remarks by the leader of the world's Catholic church result from ignorance and lack of comprehension and proper understanding of the Islamic culture.

Meantime, the official viewed Pope's remarks as worrisome, and reminded that international movement of Zionism, supported by the US, intends to undermine solidarity of religions through sowing seeds of discord among them.

"During that negotiation, I propose that on the one hand the six refrain from referring the issue to the Security Council and that Iran renounce during the negotiation the enrichment of uranium," he told Europe 1 radio.

The six nations holding talks with Tehran are the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.

It was the first time a European leader has clearly stated that the suspension of uranium enrichment was not a precondition for opening talks on the nuclear dossier.

Chirac indicated that the suspension should come during rather than before negotiations.

"We can find solutions via dialogue," said Chirac, who was later to head to New York for the UN's General Assembly due to start Tuesday.

There, he was to meet US President George W. Bush, who has been espousing a harder line against Iran, America's arch-enemy for the past three decades.

Both men were to address the assembly on Tuesday -- as was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Bush last week warned US allies not to get too caught up in talking with Tehran, which Washington suspects is trying to build a nuclear arsenal under cover of an energy production programme.

"My concern is that, you know, they'll stall; they'll try to wait us out," Bush said. "So part of my objective in New York is to remind people that stalling shouldn't be allowed."

The United States would like to see the Security Council threaten sanctions on Iran, including economic measures and travel bans.

But veto-wielding members China, Russia -- and now France -- are openly balking.

Chirac, in an interview with CNN, said: "There is a lot more potential to dialogue and I would like us to go the end of that particular road before we decide to go any further in any other direction.

"I very much hope that dialogue will get us out of this crisis and I believe it will."

The French president also touched on the UN Security Council row over the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, which poisoned relations between Paris and Washington and cast Chirac and Bush more as ideological opponents than allies.

He told CNN he was convinced that his objections to the US push for war on Iraq -- Iran's neighbour -- had been validated.

"I adopted a stance on Iraq and I have to say that the way things panned out, it certainly didn't go against the stance I took. What I said has been borne out and I remain very pessimistic about Iraq and its future."

Although Chirac and Bush were to be in New York at the same time as the Iranian president, both have said they had no plans to meet him.

Ahmadinejad, for his part, said on the weekend during a Non-Aligned Movement summit in Cuba that the United States was the real nuclear threat in the world.

"What is the UN Security Council waiting for to react to those threats?" he asked, urging other countries to help "counter attempts to prevent Iran from developing its peaceful nuclear activity."

In Vienna, at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, UN nuclear chief Mohammed ElBaradei said he remained "hopeful" Iran and world powers would be able to hold negotiations over Tehran's atomic ambitions.

He noted, however, Iran's failure to meet an August 31 deadline imposed by the UN Security Council to suspend uranium enrichment activities.

That suspension had been a precondition to talks with six world powers on a package of trade and other benefits for Iran.

In an interview on Europe 1 radio, the 73-year-old president made a major gesture towards Iran - urging that referral of Tehran's nuclear programme to the UN Security Council wait upon new negotiations and declaring himself sceptical about the use of sanctions.

In the wake of the row over Pope Benedict XVI's comments on Islam, Chirac urged the world to "avoid everything that increases tensions between peoples or religions".

While seeing the pope's remarks as "part of a dialogue about cultures and civilisations which I also advocate", he said: "We must avoid any confusion between Islam, which is of course a respected and respectable religion, and radical Islamism."

The president also urged the Sudanese government to accept UN troops to resolve the crisis in Darfur province, and said France would propose an international conference on Lebanon to help raise funds for the country's post-war reconstruction.

On US President George W. Bush, who he is to meet in New York Tuesday, Chirac said, "We have a relationship which is inevitably one of equals, which is certainly not one of submission" - and on the decision to oppose the 2003 war on Iraq he said: "When I look at the situation I do not think I made a mistake."

President Chirac appears to have been buoyed by the high profile given to France's role in international efforts to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah - as well as by opinion polls which show a sharp recovery in his domestic popularity over the summer.

In the latest survey published by a national newspaper Sunday the president enjoys the "good opinion" of 38 percent of the public - up 11 points from July.

"He has discovered a new sense of purpose. The French realise how much he is in control of international dossiers. Compared to Sarkozy and Royal, there's no contest," an unnamed Chirac adviser told le Parisien newspaper.

Chirac is widely expected to leave office next May after presidential elections in which the two front-runners are Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) and the Socialist Ségolène Royal.

While his record on domestic matters after nearly 12 years in office often fares badly in polls, on foreign affairs the president scores better - his favourite themes of a "multipolar" world and the need for dialogue between civilisations striking a clear chord with the public.

According to newspaper reports Monday, Chirac has expressed private anger at the overtly pro-American policies of his potential successor, Nicolas Sarkozy, who in a speech in Washington last week said that his friendship for the US had earned him criticism in France - "but I am proud of it. I lay claim to it."

Sarkozy also took clear aim at the way Chirac and the foreign minister Dominique de Villepin handled the run-up to the war in Iraq, saying: "I always prefer modest effectiveness to sterile grandiloquence. I want nothing of an arrogant France."

The left-wing Libération newspaper quoted Chirac as telling advisers that Sarkozy's speech had been "irresponsible" and "lamentable."

"We had a deal, and the deal was the following, and Iran understood that: If Iran was prepared to suspend its uranium enrichment and negotiate we were prepared to go down that road. And the United States prepared to go to the table for the first time in more than two decades. If Iran did not, then the Security Council would have to act."

The U.S. is pressing for sanctions against Iran after Tehran ignored an August 31 UN Security Council deadline for suspending uranium enrichment. Both Russia and its Security Council ally China oppose sanctions, although they did vote for a resolution that held the prospect of sanctions should Iran not comply by the deadline.

"And I just want to say that we are in the process right now of working with the European-Three but also with the Russians and the Chinese on a resolution which we intend to vote, to send a very strong message to Iran that it can't simply ignore the will of the international community," Secretary of State added.

"Now there are talks going on. We think that's a good thing. If the Iranians come out of those talks with Javier Solana, the European Foreign Policy Chief, and decide that they wish to suspend, then we're ready to negotiate."

Arguing that every nation had the equal right to nuclear energy, he said that if it was "something good," then "everyone should have it," but if otherwise, "nobody should have it."

Iran was "willing to negotiate with any country," which was the nation's constant commitment, Ahmadinejad added.

During talks with the visiting Iranian leader, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez reaffirmed his support for Iran's nuclear program.

"We are on your side, we will defend the rights of the Iranian people," said Chavez.

Iran delivered its official report on Aug. 22, refusing to suspend uranium enrichment by Aug. 31, the deadline laid out in UN Security Council Resolution 1696.

It was Iran's response to an incentive package offered by the six major powers -- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- aimed at defusing the international nuclear crisis.

The Iranian president, who arrived here on Sunday, was scheduled to fly to New York later on Monday to attend the UN General Assembly.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't one for ceremony. We are waiting in a villa outside Havana when Ahmadinejad strides in without notice, taking even his aides by surprise. He is wearing blue-gray trousers, black loafers and the trademark tan jacket that even he calls his "Ahmadinejad jacket." He mutters something to himself as he settles into an aging leather chair with bad springs. For a moment, he seems irked by the chair, perhaps because it makes him seem even smaller than his 5 ft. 4 in., but soon he's smiling, prodding, leaning forward to make his points. "We are living our own lives," he says, when asked about his differences with the Bush Administration. He jabs the back of my hand for emphasis. "The U.S. government should not interfere in our affairs. They should live their own lives."

When he made his first trip to the U.S. last year for a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, Ahmadinejad was still a curiosity--a diminutive, plainly dressed man who had come out of nowhere to win Iran's presidential election. But in New York City this week, he won't have trouble being recognized. His incendiary statements--he has declared the Holocaust a "myth," has said Israel should be "wiped away" and has called the Jewish state "a stain of disgrace"--have made him the most polarizing head of state in the Muslim world. Under Ahmadinejad, Iran has built up its influence in Lebanon and Iraq and made clear its intention to become the dominant power in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. He has also accelerated work on Iran's civilian nuclear program, which the U.S. believes is geared toward producing a nuclear bomb. Though pictures of the Iranian President often show him flashing a peace sign, his actions could well be leading the world closer to war.

For all his bluster, Ahmadinejad remains an enigma. His powers are limited by Iran's political structure, in which ultimate authority over matters of state rests with the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei. The regime has threatened to retaliate against American interests "in every part of the world" if the U.S. were ever to launch a military strike against Iran. But Ahmadinejad has also made rhetorical gestures of conciliation, sending an open letter to George W. Bush and inviting the U.S. President to a televised discussion about "the ways of solving the problems of the international community." (Bush ruled it out last week. "I'm not going to meet with him," he said at a White House news conference.)

Ahmadinejad is a skilled, if slippery, debater. In his press conferences, he has shown himself to be a natural politician, gifted in the art of spin and misdirection. Our meeting took place last Saturday in a villa on the outskirts of Havana, where he was attending the confab for leaders of nonaligned nations, a gathering that included other irritants to the West such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

Over the course of the 45-minute interview, he was serious, smiling and cocky--evidence of a self-assurance that borders on arrogance. His brown eyes locked onto mine when he made a point about Iran's nuclear program. His rhetoric was measured, but he was adamant on the issues that have made him so controversial. He dismissed U.N. demands that Iran suspend its uranium-enrichment program but said, "We are opposed to the development of nuclear weapons. We think it is of no use and that it is against the interests of nations." He waved a hand dismissively when I couldn't grasp his logic in questioning the Holocaust. Asked to defend his claim that the Holocaust was a myth, he went on a rambling rant, claiming that those who try to do "independent research" on the Holocaust have been imprisoned. "About historical events," he says, "there are different views."

He was more generous and accommodating when it came to discussing the U.S., saying his May letter to Bush was a genuine effort to reach out. He spoke highly of Americans, based on his trip to New York. "My general impression is that the people of the United States are good people ... The people of the United States are also seeking peace, love, friendship and justice."

Whether such talk will be enough to save the two nations from a confrontation remains to be seen. Nor is it clear that Ahmadinejad's own job is secure. Impatience with his failure to fix Iran's economy is growing, and there is some speculation that the Old Guard may try to push him out. But until then, he seems likely to keep challenging the West, stirring things up. He aspires to unite Muslim opinion and make Iran the dominant player in the Middle East, restoring the country to its ancient imperial glory.

Ahmadinejad's handlers said our interview would last only 30 minutes, but he let it go on despite their protests. At last we were passed a note: "The time is over and Mr. President has an important meeting with the Cuban President. Goodbye." Ahmadinejad bolted from the room, swapped his jacket for a suit coat and climbed into a Mercedes. As the car pulled away, he sat in the back with an aide, smiled one more time and threw us a final wave.

"WE DO NOT NEED ATTACKS"

On the eve of a visit to the U.S., Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks to TIME's Scott MacLeod about debating President Bush, pursuing nuclear energy and denying the Holocaust

TIME: What were your impressions of New York during your visit to the U.S. last year?

AHMADINEJAD: Unfortunately we didn't have any contact with the people of the United States. We were not in touch with the people. But my general impression is that the people of the United States are good people. Everywhere in the world, people are good.

TIME: Did you visit the site of the World Trade Center?

AHMADINEJAD: It was not necessary. It was widely covered in the media.

TIME: You recently invited President Bush to a televised debate. If he were sitting where I am sitting, what would you say, man to man?

AHMADINEJAD: The issues which are of interest to us are the international issues and how to manage them. I gave some recommendations to President Bush in my personal letter, and I hope that he will take note of them. I would ask him, Are rationalism, spirituality and humanitarianism and logic--are they bad things for human beings? Why more conflict? Why should we go for hostilities? Why should we develop weapons of mass destruction? Everybody can love one another.

TIME: Do you feel any connection with President Bush, since he is also a religious man, a strong Christian?

AHMADINEJAD: I've heard about that. But there are many things which take place and are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ in this world.

TIME: Why do your supporters chant "Death to America"?

AHMADINEJAD: When they chanted that slogan, it means they hate aggression, and they hate bullying tactics, and they hate violations of the rights of nations and discrimination. I recommended to President Bush that he can change his behavior, then everything will change.

TIME: How do you think the American people feel when they hear Iranians shouting "Death to America" and the President of Iran does not criticize this?

AHMADINEJAD: The nations do not have any problems. What is the role of the American people in what is happening in the world? The people of the United States are also seeking peace, love, friendship and justice.

TIME: But if Americans shouted "Death to Iran," Iranians would feel insulted.

AHMADINEJAD: If the government of Iran acted in such a way, then [the American people] have this right.

TIME: Are America and Iran fated to be in conflict?

AHMADINEJAD: No, this is not fate. And this can come to an end. I have said we can run the world through logic. We are living our own lives. The U.S. government should not interfere in our affairs. They should live their own lives. They should serve the interests of the U.S. people. They should not interfere in our affairs. Then there would be no problems with that.

TIME: Are you ready to open direct negotiations with the U.S.?

AHMADINEJAD: We have given them a letter, a lengthy letter. We say the U.S. Administration should change its behavior, and then everything will be solved. It was the U.S. which broke up relations with us. We didn't take that position. And then they should make up for it.

TIME: Does Iran have the right to nuclear weapons?

AHMADINEJAD: We are opposed to nuclear weapons. We think it has been developed just to kill human beings. It is not in the service of human beings. For that reason, last year in my address to the U.N. General Assembly, I suggested that a committee should be set up in order to disarm all the countries that possess nuclear weapons.

TIME: But you were attacked with weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. You say the U.S. threatens you, and you are surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons.

AHMADINEJAD: Today nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument. We don't have any problems with Pakistan or India. Actually they are friends of Iran, and throughout history they have been friends. The Zionist regime is not capable of using nuclear weapons. Problems cannot be solved through bombs. Bombs are of little use today. We need logic.

TIME: Why won't you agree to suspend enrichment of uranium as a confidence-building measure?

AHMADINEJAD: Whose confidence should be built?

TIME: The world's?

AHMADINEJAD: The world? The world? Who is the world? The United States? The U.S. Administration is not the entire world. Europe does not account for one-twentieth of the entire world. When I studied the provisions of the NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty], nowhere did I see it written that in order to produce nuclear fuel, we need to win the support or the confidence of the United States and some European countries.

TIME: How far will Iran go in defying Western demands? Will you wait until you are attacked and your nuclear installations are destroyed?

AHMADINEJAD: Do you think the U.S. Administration would be so irrational?

TIME: You tell me.

AHMADINEJAD: I hope that is not the case. I said that we need logic. We do not need attacks.

TIME: Are you worried about an attack?

AHMADINEJAD: No.

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

AHMADINEJAD: People in the world are free to think the way they wish. We do not insist they should change their views. Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: we say that a nation has been displaced from its own land. Palestinian people are killed in their own lands, by those who are not original inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have occupied those homes. Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way. Do you have any other suggestions?

TIME: Do you believe the Jewish people have a right to their own state?

AHMADINEJAD: We do not oppose it. In any country in which the people are ready to vote for the Jews to come to power, it is up to them. In our country, the Jews are living and they are represented in our Parliament. But Zionists are different from Jews.

TIME: Have you considered that Iranian Jews are hurt by your comments denying that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust?

AHMADINEJAD: As to the Holocaust, I just raised a few questions. And I didn't receive any answers to my questions. I said that during World War II, around 60 million were killed. All were human beings and had their own dignities. Why only 6 million? And if it had happened, then it is a historical event. Then why do they not allow independent research?

TIME: But massive research has been done.

AHMADINEJAD: They put in prison those who try to do research. About historical events everybody should be free to conduct research. Let's assume that it has taken place. Where did it take place? So what is the fault of the Palestinian people? These questions are quite clear. We are waiting for answers.