Rice made her remarks at a joint press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit after a group meeting with foreign ministers from Egypt, Jordan plus the six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait.

Rice said that Iran should have the right of access to civil nuclear program but should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

She also dismissed as "old idea" an Iranian proposal that France could invest in Iran's nuclear industry and supervise Iran's nuclear program.

There was once a Russian proposal to set up a joint venture for uranium enrichment, which would disable Iran to enrich uranium on its own soil but refused by Iran in the end, said Rice.

She said the right way for Iran to propose anything was to suspend enrichment and reprocessing, and to come to the table with their ideas.

"But I fear that this may instead, therefore, be a stalling technique because Iran won't get to the basic issue, which is that Iran has to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing in order to begin negotiations," said Rice.

Rice arrived here earlier in the day on a two-day visit to Egypt as part of a regional tour, which has already taken her to Saudi Arabia.

Mr Solana, on a visit to Finland yesterday, said a telephone call to Ali Larijani, Iran's leading nuclear negotiator, yesterday failed to produce any breakthrough.

The British official said the foreign ministers had "agreed these steps should be incremental, they should be proportionate and they should be reversible if the Iranians do take the steps that are required of them".

Iran has hinted that if sanctions are imposed, it would leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which would mean UN inspectors would no longer be able to monitor Iran's nuclear programme, and that it might close the Straits of Hormuz, a move which would choke off most of the oil supply from the Gulf.

But the official claimed Iranian threats were "exaggerated" and that the rise in Saudi oil production would help offset the drop in supply. The official added that Iran would have mastered the uranium enrichment technology within a year or two.

The US secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice, is scheduled to be in Europe at the end of the week to discuss sanctions with Britain, France and Germany.

Ms Rice said yesterday that the only choice for the international community was sanctions.

Igor Ivanov, the Russian foreign minster, flew to Tehran yesterday to make a renewed attempt at finding a solution.

The steps will be these: Air Force tankers will be deployed to fuel B-2 bombers, Navy cruise missile ships will be positioned at strategic points in the northern Indian Ocean and perhaps the Persian Gulf, unmanned drones will collect target data, and commando teams will refine those data. The latter two steps are already being taken.

Then the president will speak on national television. He will say this: Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons; if this happens, the entire region will go nuclear; our diplomatic efforts to prevent this have failed; Iran is offering a haven to known al Qaeda leaders; the fate of our ally Israel is at stake; Iran persists in supporting terrorism, including in Iraq; and sanctions will have no affect (and besides they are for sissies). He will not say: ...and besides, we need the oil.

Therefore, he will announce, our own national security and the security of the region requires us to act. "Tonight, I have ordered the elimination of all facilities in Iran that are dedicated to the production of weapons of mass destruction....." In the narrowest terms this includes perhaps two dozen targets.

But the authors of the war on Iraq have "regime change" in mind in Iran. According to Colonel Sam Gardiner (author of "The End of the 'Summer of Diplomacy': Assessing U.S. Military Options in Iran," The Century Foundation, 2006) to have any hope of success, such a policy would require attacking at least 400 targets, including the Revolutionary Guard. But even this presumes the Iranian people will respond to a massive U.S. attack on their country by overthrowing their government. Only an Administration inspired by pre-Enlightenment fantasy could believe a notion such as this.

Embracing this reverie requires believing in the Iranian Ahmed Chalabi, or perhaps even Mr. Chalabi himself since he has been working both sides of the street in both countries for some time.

It does not involve much imagination to understand the timing. The U.S. is poised to adopt a Congressional regime change of its own in November. A political strategy totally based on fear can offer few other options to prevent this. Besides, occupation by Democrats of even one house of Congress in January would make this scheme more difficult (one would certainly hope).

Further, time for super-power military conquest may be running short in the emerging age of fourth generation warfare. "...the age of Western military ascendancy is coming to an end." ("No Win," Andrew Bacevich, The Boston Globe, August 27, 2006).

The consequences? The sunny neoconservatives whose goal has been to become the neo-imperial Middle Eastern power all along will forcast few. But prudent leaders calculate all the risks, and they are historic.

These include: violent reaction throughout the Islamic world; a dramatic increase in jihadist attacks in European capitals and the U.S.; radicalization of Islamic youth behind a new generation of jihadist leaders; consolidation of support for Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and a rapidly spreading malignant network; escalating expansion of anti-American sentiment throughout the world, including the democratic world; and the formation of WWIII battle lines between the U.S. and the Arab and Islamic worlds.

In more rational times, including at the height of the Cold War, bizarre actions such as unilateral, unprovoked, preventive war are dismissed by thoughtful, seasoned, experienced men and women as mad. But those qualities do not characterize our current leadership.

For a divinely guided president who imagines himself to be a latter day Winston Churchill (albeit lacking the ability to formulate intelligent sentences), and who professedly does not care about public opinion at home or abroad, anything is possible, and dwindling days in power may be seen as making the most apocalyptic actions necessary.

The proposal, made by Mohammad Saeidi, the deputy director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was presented as a sign of flexibility in negotiations between Iran and six world powers represented by the European Union.

"In order to reach a solution, we've just had an idea: we propose that France create a consortium for the production in Iran of enriched uranium," Mr. Saeidi said in an interview in Tehran with France Info radio that was broadcast Tuesday.

A senior French official on Tuesday said: "This is totally excluded. There is nothing substantive behind it. This is not the first time the Iranians have tried to divide the international community."

Another senior European official - who, like the first, spoke on condition of anonymity under diplomatic rules - said that proposal "seemed to have the intention of distracting."

The United States, meanwhile, is giving Iran until the end of the week to declare whether it will agree to fully stop making enriched uranium or face sanctions. Enriched uranium can be used to make energy or to fuel weapons, and Washington has consistently taken the position that any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil is out of the question because it could give Iran the ability to master the nuclear fuel cycle.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the foreign ministers of the other five governments involved in the negotiations with Iran - Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany - have discussed the possibility of meeting in London on Friday to plot a strategy for the next steps, officials said.

While at a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on Tuesday, Ms. Rice told reporters that there was nothing new in the Iranian proposal, and that it continued to fall far short of international demands.

"The Iranians have floated it before," she said, suggesting that the United States would reject any proposal that allowed Iran to enrich and reprocess uranium on its own soil. "This may be a stalling technique."

The Iranian proposal, which has been rejected by Iran's negotiating partners in the past, comes as Iran has hardened its position in negotiations between Ali Larijani, its chief nuclear negotiator, and Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief.

Mr. Solana reported to the six governments in recent days that Mr. Larijani rejected the calls to halt key nuclear activities even though Iran could face sanctions by the Security Council, three senior European officials said.

Instead, in meetings in Berlin with Mr. Solana last week, Mr. Larijani floated the idea of the creation of an international consortium to administer Iran's production of enriched uranium. He did not mention France as the central player, the officials said.

In what was widely perceived as a stalling tactic, Mr. Larijani also spent much of his time in recent conversations with Mr. Solana, airing Iran's historical grievances against the rest of the world.

Specifically, Mr. Larijani told Mr. Solana that Iran's current enrichment activities would have to continue, and that Iran would consider only a temporary halt to the expansion of its uranium enrichment program, the officials added.

The six powers, through Mr. Solana, had been trying to persuade the Iranians to accept a three-month halt on all uranium enrichment activities at their vast plant at Natanz and on construction at the plutonium plant at Arak, the European officials said. Uranium conversion, an earlier stage of processing, would have been allowed to continue at the Isfahan plant.

These officials also spoke on condition of anonymity under normal rules of diplomacy.

There is also increasing frustration among European governments with Mr. Solana for presenting the results of his talks in too positive a light, several European officials said.

Mr. Solana has acknowledged the lack of progress on substantive issues, telling reporters in Finland on Monday, "The fundamental matter of suspension has not been agreed." But he has repeatedly pointed to "progress" on peripheral issues, like where and when further negotiations with the six governments would take place.

On Tuesday, Mr. Solana appeared to keep the door open to Iran's new proposal, describing it as "interesting," and adding, "This is something we have to analyze in greater detail."

In the radio interview, Mr. Saeidi proposed that Iran's uranium enrichment activities would be monitored "in a tangible way" by Eurodif, a multinational enrichment consortium based in France, and by Areva, the France-based nuclear energy giant and majority shareholder in Eurodif.

Eighty-seven percent of Areva is held by French governmental institutions, and the company has vast interests in the United States ($1.8 billion in earnings in America in 2005) that it may not want to jeopardize by seeming to negotiate with Iran.

Philip Shenon contributed reporting from Cairo.

Mohammad Saeedi, deputy chief of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, told France-Info radio: "To be able to arrive at a solution, we have just had an idea. We propose that France create a consortium for the production in Iran of enriched uranium.

"That way France, through the companies Eurodif and Areva, could control in a tangible way our enrichment activities," he said.

Eurodif is a branch of Areva, a French state-controlled nuclear manufacturer, and was created in part with Iranian backing in the 1970s.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

Afghanistan is suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since a U.S.-led military force toppled the Taliban in late 2001 for harboring al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

According to an Associated Press count, based on reports from U.S., NATO and Afghan officials, at least 2,800 people have been killed nationwide so far this year. The count, which includes militants and civilians, is about 1,300 more than the toll for all of 2005.

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, told Pentagon reporters last month that while the Taliban enemy in Afghanistan is not extremely strong, their numbers and influence have grown in some southern sections of the country.

President Bush has been criticized for his handling of the war and is trying to contain the damage ahead of midterm elections this fall. On Friday, Bush acknowledged setbacks in the training of Afghan police to fight against the Taliban resurgence but predicted eventual victory.

Frist said asking the Taliban to join the government was a decision to be made by Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Karzai's spokesmen were not immediately able to be reached for comment.

Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida accompanying Frist on his trip, said negotiating with the Taliban was not "out of the question" but that fighters who refused to join the political process would have to be defeated.

"A political solution is how it's all going to be solved," he said.

Frist said he had hoped the U.S. would be able to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan soon. But he said the 20,000 U.S. troops in the country are still needed to support the NATO alliance, which will assume direct control over most military operations here.

"We're going to need to stay here a long time," Frist said.

The senator said he was warned to expect attacks to increase. There appears to be an "unlimited flow" of Afghans and foreigners "willing to pick up arms and integrate themselves with the Taliban," he said.

He said the only way to win in places like the volatile southern part of the country is to "assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government."

"Approaching counterinsurgency by winning hearts and minds will ultimately be the answer," Frist said. "Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn't sound like it can be won. It sounds to me ... that the Taliban is everywhere."

Frist and Martinez flew to this dust-blown mountain city 220 miles south of Kabul during a one-day stop in Afghanistan on a regional tour that includes stops in Pakistan and Iraq.

The pair had intended to visit a new $6.5 million hospital built by the United Arab Emirates, but a group of wounded Taliban fighters were recuperating there, including a midlevel commander, and U.S. commander Lt. Col. Kevin McGlaughlin canceled the visit because of security concerns.

In violence Monday, a suicide bomber blew himself up next to a NATO convoy in the capital Kabul, wounding three foreign soldiers and three civilians, while a roadside bomb in the eastern Paktia province killed three Afghan soldiers and wounded three others, officials said.

Maj. Luke Knittig, a military spokesman, said he could not disclose the nationalities of the NATO soldiers who were wounded. The attack came two days after another suicide bomber killed 12 people and wounded more than 40 outside Afghanistan's Interior Ministry.

In the southern province of Helmand, five civilians were killed when their vehicle hit a mine on a road usually used by NATO and Afghan forces, said Ghulam Muhiddin, the governor's spokesman.

Suspected Taliban on a motorbike, meanwhile, killed two policemen and wounded two others in Gereshk district, he said. NATO-led troops killed three militants in Nawzad district.

"All UNIFIL personnel may exercise the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the use of force beyond self-defense may be applied to ensure that UNIFIL's area of operations," it said.

According to the statement the UN mandate is aimed at protecting "UN personnel, facilities, installations and equipment; ensuring the security and freedom of movement of UN personnel and humanitarian workers; and protecting civilians under imminent threat of physical violence."

?Should the situation present any risk of resumption of hostile activities, UNIFIL rules of engagement allow UN forces to respond as required,? UNIFIL stated in a press release issued Tuesday, in regard to the mandate given to UN forces under the UN security council?s resolution 1701.

According to UNIFIL, "in cases where specific information is available regarding movement of unauthorized weapons or equipment, the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces] will take required action. However, in situations where the LAF are not in a position to do so, UNIFIL will do everything necessary to fulfill its mandate in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1701."

Issues dealt with in the UNIFIL statement were discussed this past week by Israeli representatives, the Lebanese Army, and UNIFIL officers in southern Lebanon. Israeli representatives said that under Resolution 1701, UNIFIL forces must work to locate and identify Hezbollah weapons and ammunition stores, and that in instances where UNIFIL encounters Hezbollah members, to remove their weapons from them. This issue was later removed from the agreement.

The release further stated that UNIFIL has deployed 5,200 soldiers, out of a maximum 15,000 allowed under Security Council resolution 1701.

It said UNIFIL, whose task is to support the Lebanese army in the area, "has set up temporary checkpoints at key locations within its area of operations."

It added that Lebanese troops have established "permanent checkpoints... to stop and search passing vehicles and would act if they find unauthorized weapons."

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which ended the war on August 14 calls for peacekeepers to monitor the southern Lebanese border region along the border with Israel and make sure it is "free of any armed personnel other than those of the Lebanese armed forces and UNIFIL."

Since the cease-fire, Hezbollah guerrillas have kept out of sight in southern Lebanon, but their chief Hassan Nasrallah has rejected in several speeches the laying down his movement's arms as required by the UN resolution.

Hezbollah official in southern Lebanon Sheikh Nabil Kawook said Tuesday that "Hezbollah guerrillas are still in the border areas with Israel with their weapons."

"I tell [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert, our guerrillas are still there, but not visible, so nothing has changed since July 12," the Hezbollah official said.

Israel launched a offensive against Lebanon on July 12 in response to the cross-border kidnapping of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah.