War with Iran-a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East-is probable by the end of the Bush administration. It could begin in as little as three weeks. This administration, claiming to be anointed by a Christian God to reshape the world, and especially the Middle East, defined three states at the start of its reign as "the Axis of Evil." They were Iraq, now occupied; North Korea, which, because it has nuclear weapons, is untouchable; and Iran. Those who do not take this apocalyptic rhetoric seriously have ignored the twisted pathology of men like Elliott Abrams, who helped orchestrate the disastrous and illegal contra war in Nicaragua, and who now handles the Middle East for the National Security Council. He knew nothing about Central America. He knows nothing about the Middle East. He sees the world through the childish, binary lens of good and evil, us and them, the forces of darkness and the forces of light. And it is this strange, twilight mentality that now grips most of the civilian planners who are barreling us towards a crisis of epic proportions.

These men advocate a doctrine of permanent war, a doctrine which, as William R. Polk points out, is a slight corruption of Leon Trotsky's doctrine of permanent revolution. These two revolutionary doctrines serve the same function, to intimidate and destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, to create permanent instability and fear and to silence domestic critics who challenge leaders in a time of national crisis. It works. The citizens of the United States, slowly being stripped of their civil liberties, are being herded sheep-like, once again, over a cliff.

But this war will be different. It will be catastrophic. It will usher in the apocalyptic nightmares spun out in the dark, fantastic visions of the Christian right. And there are those around the president who see this vision as preordained by God; indeed, the president himself may hold such a vision.

The hypocrisy of this vaunted moral crusade is not lost on those in the Middle East. Iran actually signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has violated a codicil of that treaty written by European foreign ministers, but this codicil was never ratified by the Iranian parliament. I do not dispute Iran's intentions to acquire nuclear weapons nor do I minimize the danger should it acquire them in the estimated five to 10 years. But contrast Iran with Pakistan, India and Israel. These three countries refused to sign the treaty and developed nuclear weapons programs in secret. Israel now has an estimated 400 to 600 nuclear weapons. The word "Dimona," the name of the city where the nuclear facilities are located in Israel, is shorthand in the Muslim world for the deadly Israeli threat to Muslims' existence. What lessons did the Iranians learn from our Israeli, Pakistani and Indian allies?

Given that we are actively engaged in an effort to destabilize the Iranian regime by recruiting tribal groups and ethnic minorities inside Iran to rebel, given that we use apocalyptic rhetoric to describe what must be done to the Iranian regime, given that other countries in the Middle East such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are making noises about developing a nuclear capacity, and given that, with the touch of a button Israel could obliterate Iran, what do we expect from the Iranians? On top of this, the Iranian regime grasps that the doctrine of permanent war entails making "preemptive" and unprovoked strikes.

Those in Washington who advocate this war, knowing as little about the limitations and chaos of war as they do about the Middle East, believe they can hit about 1,000 sites inside Iran to wipe out nuclear production and cripple the 850,000-man Iranian army. The disaster in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli air campaign not only failed to break Hezbollah but united most Lebanese behind the militant group, is dismissed. These ideologues, after all, do not live in a reality-based universe. The massive Israeli bombing of Lebanon failed to pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen when we begin to pound a country of 70 million people? As retired General Wesley K. Clark and others have pointed out, once you begin an air campaign it is only a matter of time before you have to put troops on the ground or accept defeat, as the Israelis had to do in Lebanon. And if we begin dropping bunker busters, cruise missiles and iron fragmentation bombs on Iran this is the choice that must be faced-either sending American forces into Iran to fight a protracted and futile guerrilla war or walking away in humiliation.

"As a people we are enormously forgetful," Dr. Polk, one of the country's leading scholars on the Middle East, told an Oct. 13 gathering of the Foreign Policy Association in New York. "We should have learned from history that foreign powers can't win guerrilla wars. The British learned this from our ancestors in the American Revolution and re-learned it in Ireland. Napoleon learned it in Spain. The Germans learned it in Yugoslavia. We should have learned it in Vietnam and the Russians learned it in Afghanistan and are learning it all over again in Chechnya and we are learning it, of course, in Iraq. Guerrilla wars are almost unwinnable. As a people we are also very vain. Our way of life is the only way. We should have learned that the rich and powerful can't always succeed against the poor and less powerful."

An attack on Iran will ignite the Middle East. The loss of Iranian oil, coupled with Silkworm missile attacks by Iran on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, could send oil soaring to well over $110 a barrel. The effect on the domestic and world economy will be devastating, very possibly triggering a huge, global depression. The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey will turn in rage on us and our dwindling allies. We will see a combination of increased terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and the widespread sabotage of oil production in the Gulf. Iraq, as bad as it looks now, will become a death pit for American troops as Shiites and Sunnis, for the first time, unite against their foreign occupiers.

The country, however, that will pay the biggest price will be Israel. And the sad irony is that those planning this war think of themselves as allies of the Jewish state. A conflagration of this magnitude could see Israel drawn back in Lebanon and sucked into a regional war, one that would over time spell the final chapter in the Zionist experiment in the Middle East. The Israelis aptly call their nuclear program "the Samson option." The Biblical Samson ripped down the pillars of the temple and killed everyone around him, along with himself.

If you are sure you will be raptured into heaven, your clothes left behind with the nonbelievers, then this news should cheer you up. If you are rational, however, these may be some of the last few weeks or months in which to enjoy what is left of our beleaguered, dying republic and way of life.

Chris Hedges is former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times and author of the bestseller "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" reports on Bush's plan for Iran, and how a callous war, conceived by zealots, will lead to a disaster of biblical proportions.

Copyright © 2006 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

The sale of the nuclear technology was a high-profile contract. ABB's then chief executive, Goran Lindahl, visited North Korea in November 1999 to announce ABB's "wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement" with the communist government.

The company also opened an office in the country's capital, Pyongyang, and the deal was signed a year later in 2000. Despite this, Mr Rumsfeld's office said that the de fence secretary did not "recall it being brought before the board at any time".

In a statement to the American magazine Newsweek, his spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that there "was no vote on this". A spokesman for ABB told the Guardian yesterday that "board members were informed about the project which would deliver systems and equipment for light water reactors".

Just months after Mr Rumsfeld took office, President George Bush ended the policy of engagement and negotiation pursued by Mr Clinton, saying he did not trust North Korea, and pulled the plug on diplomacy. Pyongyang warned that it would respond by building nuclear missiles. A review of American policy was announced and the bilateral confidence building steps, key to Mr Clinton's policy of detente, halted.

By January 2002, the Bush administration had placed North Korea in the "axis of evil" alongside Iraq and Iran. If there was any doubt about how the White House felt about North Korea this was dispelled by Mr Bush, who told the Washington Post last year: "I loathe [North Korea's leader] Kim Jong-il."

The success of campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have enhanced the status of Mr Rumsfeld in Washington. Two years after leaving ABB, Mr Rumsfeld now considers North Korea a "terrorist regime _ teetering on the verge of collapse" and which is on the verge of becoming a proliferator of nuclear weapons. During a bout of diplomatic activity over Christmas he warned that the US could fight two wars at once - a reference to the forthcoming conflict with Iraq. After Baghdad fell, Mr Rumsfeld said Pyongyang should draw the "appropriate lesson".

Critics of the administration's bellicose language on North Korea say that the problem was not that Mr Rumsfeld supported the Clinton-inspired diplomacy and the ABB deal but that he did not "speak up against it". "One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation," said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst with the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington.

Many members of the Bush administration are on record as opposing Mr Clinton's plans, saying that weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from the type of light water reactors that ABB sold. Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the state department's number two diplomat, Richard Armitage, both opposed the deal as did the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, whose campaign Mr Rumsfeld ran and where he also acted as defence adviser.

One unnamed ABB board director told Fortune magazine that Mr Rumsfeld was involved in lobbying his hawkish friends on behalf of ABB.

The Clinton package sought to defuse tensions on the Ko rean peninsula by offering supplies of oil and new light water nuclear reactors in return for access by inspectors to Pyongyang's atomic facilities and a dismantling of its heavy water reactors which produce weapons grade plutonium. Light water reactors are known as "proliferation-resistant" but, in the words of one expert, they are not "proliferation-proof".

The type of reactors involved in the ABB deal produce plutonium which needs refining before it can be weaponised. One US congressman and critic of the North Korean regime described the reactors as "nuclear bomb factories".

North Korea expelled the inspectors last year and withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in January at about the same time that the Bush administration authorised $3.5m to keep ABB's reactor project going.

North Korea is thought to have offered to scrap its nuclear facilities and missile pro gramme and to allow international nuclear inspectors into the country. But Pyongyang demanded that security guarantees and aid from the US must come first.

Mr Bush now insists that he will only negotiate a new deal with Pyongyang after the nuclear programme is scrapped. Washington believes that offering inducements would reward Pyongyang's "blackmail" and encourage other "rogue" states to develop weapons of mass destruction.

But the problem goes much deeper. Anti-Islamic currents have been simmering since September 11, 2001. This disturbing trend emanates from three separate Western strata: political (governments, intelligence agencies and think tanks), certain members of the clergy and influential members of society (arts and media).

The chasm began with what was presented as an innocent slip of the tongue. When Muslims reacted angrily to George W. Bush's September 2001 use of the word "crusade" they were considered over-sensitive. If the word hadn't come from the lips of a devout born-again evangelical he might have been afforded the benefit of the doubt.

The US president apologized and all was well until the Reverend Franklin Graham, a preacher close to the White House, jumped into the fray, calling Islam "a very evil and wicked religion."

Ignoring outrage from prominent Muslims, the US television preacher Pat Robertson poured fuel onto the embers by describing Islam as a "violent religion." Then in the autumn of 2002, Jerry Falwell, an evangelical minister, appeared on the CBS show 60 Minutes calling the Prophet (PBUH) "a terrorist."

In 2004, the Dutch columnist and director Theo van Gogh released the film "Submission" showing verses from the Koran painted on women's bodies. Shortly afterwards he was assassinated. The result was a public backlash against Muslims in Holland, hitherto known for its religious tolerance.

In 2005, the attacks on Islam continued with cartoon depictions of the Prophet (PBUH) published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Howls of protest ensued but these didn't deter 143 international newspapers from reprinting the offensive material.

Five years on from that terrible day in September 2001 the attacks on Islam continue unabated. On August 10, 2006, Bush issued a reminder to the American people that "this nation is at war with Islamic fascists." Did he forget the controversy caused over his use of "crusade" or did he no longer consider the feelings of Muslims an important consideration?

A renewed attack on Islam came just a month later from an unlikely quarter, Pope Benedict XVI. The pope's followers feigned surprise that Muslims would be hurt by anti-Islamic quotes delivered by a theologian, known to be one of the Catholic Church's foremost intellectuals. The pope, they said, was taken aback by Muslim outrage. It's doubtful that his predecessor Pope John Paul II would have been so oblivious.

Responding last September to a leaked US National Intelligence assessment that suggests the Iraq war has led to a mushrooming of jihadist ideology, British Prime Minister Tony Blair had this to say:

"Look, 9-11, which is the worst terrorist act in world history, happened before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if you go back to this movement founded on a warped and perverted view of Islam, the roots of it are deep."

Blair just doesn't get it (or pretends not to). Muslim anger is generated by ongoing Palestinian suffering and the decimation of Iraq as numerous official reports suggest. The prime minister, however, prefers to blame what he calls an "evil ideology," in the hopes of getting himself off the hook.

The above represent just a small selection of the insults heaped on Muslims since 9-11: Numerous reports allege that US prison guards have disrespected the Koran. Muslims are regularly being ousted from airplanes due to nervous passengers who object to the wearing of a T-shirt printed in Arabic or the sight of fellow passengers sporting Islamic dress or beards. Muslim charities have come under suspicion, which has led to a drop in charitable donations even though Zakat (giving a proportion of one's wealth to the poor and needy) is the third pillar of Islam. Islamic banks have had their funds frozen while under investigation. Mosques and Islamic bookshops are being monitored by security services.

Islamic schools and their text books are likewise being scrutinized. The wearing of the hijab was forbidden in French public schools forcing some devout Muslim girls to drop out.

The British Home Secretary John Reid visited East London in October in an attempt to persuade British Muslims how to raise their children.

"Look for the telltale signs now," he said. "Talk to them before their hatred grows and you risk losing them for ever."

One can only imagine the screaming headlines if Reid had wagged his finger at a primarily Jewish or Christian group.

Western intellectuals often view the attacks on Islam through the prism of free speech. They contend that nothing is above criticism or discussion and seek to paint Muslims who object to insults against their core beliefs as unreasonable reactionaries, troublemakers or even the favored mot de jour "terrorists."

Nobody can or should attempt to condone violence or assassination in response to words spoken in ignorance but it must be understood that Islam is an emotive issue with most Muslims. Islam is more than a religion. It isn't something that is practiced one day each week. It's a way of life and being.

Critics should also take into account the heightened sensitivities of Muslims at a time when their countries are occupied by Western powers that seek to redesign the Middle East in their own image, and when Muslims are being abducted, incarcerated and tortured.

Moreover, when it comes to the issue of free speech, we must consider this: Would the rights of those who condemn Islam and insult the prophet be upheld with such fervor in the West were similar offensive statements being made against Judaism rather than Islam? If we're being honest we already know the answer to that one.

Free speech is a wonderful thing but even in the West it has its limits as anyone who cried "fire" in a crowded theatre, publicly called for the elimination of the president or denigrated the Holocaust would soon discover to their cost. Surely those who willfully set fire to inter-religious harmony are equally as guilty.

In fairness, Muslims should help to repair the damage. While keeping a wary eye on orchestrated political machinations, Muslims should take into account East-West cultural differences. The type of religious slurs that hurt Muslims to the core would not necessarily have the same effect on Americans or Europeans. To avert a widening chasm between the world's l.4 billion Muslims and the rest of the planet, Muslim leaders must use any reasonable means to deter the snowballing of anti-Islamic assaults sanctioned by governments.

Their silence is in part due to the current political and military vulnerabilities of some Muslim states. It's doubtful whether the terms "fascists" or "evil ideology" would be used by contemporary Western leaders in relation, say, to China or Russia.

In the same way that Britain's Queen Elizabeth II is officially "Defender of the Faith" (in this case the Church of England), rulers of Muslim nations should see themselves in a similar light. For if they are not willing to defend their peoples' faith, dignity and security then who will?

It's interesting that upon his succession to the throne, Prince Charles wants to be Defender of all Faiths - a fine sentiment worthy of being emulated by all world leaders.

Just over a year ago violence ensued after the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published cartoons of the prophet. The protests led to the deaths of more than 50 people in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Yesterday, the foreign ministry in Copenhagen cautioned against travel to Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey.

In the latest incident, a video initially posted on the internet showed members of the DPP youth group at a summer camp last August. They appeared to have been drinking alcohol and one woman was seen presenting a cartoon showing a camel with the head of Muhammad and beer cans for humps. A second drawing showed a bearded man wearing a turban next to a plus sign and a bomb followed by an equals sign and a nuclear mushroom cloud. The video was produced by an artists' group, Defending Denmark. In a message posted along with the video, the group said it had infiltrated the DPP's youth wing, known as DFU, "to document [their] extreme rightwing associations".

"This is not an example of something that is meant to provoke. This is an example to show how things are in Danish politics," artist Martin Rosengaard Knudsen told Danish public radio.

Portions of the video were shown by two Danish television channels, DR TV and TV2.

The Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, condemned the youth group's actions.

"Their tasteless behaviour does in no way represent the way the Danish people or young Danish people view Muslims or Islam," he said on Sunday.

The DPP, which advocates tighter anti-immigration controls, is allied with Mr Fogh Rasmussen's centre-right coalition but holds no government positions. The youth wing's leader, Kenneth Kristensen, said two of the people who figured in the video had gone into hiding. "They are very shaken by the huge reaction the drawings have had," he was quoted as saying on the website of the newspaper Politiken.

Indonesian Muslim groups have said they were insulted by the video and Egypt's largest Islamic group, the Muslim Brotherhood, denounced what it called "new Danish insults".

In Iran, the president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad commented: "If someone enjoys an iota of humanity and wisdom then he will not insult and offend the shining holy presence of Muhammad," according to national television.

The commander of the Galilee region police's central unit, Superintendent Shmuel Boker, said the suspect, together with an organized group of Golan Druze, residents visited family in Syria in August.

On August 31, the man participated in a political conference which senior Syrian officials also attended.

In his speech at the conference, the suspect praised Hezbollah's anti-Israel positions and Nasrallah directly. He also said that, thanks to Nasrallah, hundreds of thousands of Israelis were living underground in bomb shelters. The suspect added "The liberation of Jerusalem" is coming soon.

The conference was broadcast via several satellite television channels, including Hezbollah's Al-Manar network. Clips of the conference were also broadcast on Israel's Channel 10 TV.

The man admitted delivering the speech in Syria.

On Tuesday, police will decide whether to seek an extension of his remand or to release him on bail.

The statement described the meeting as "productive," saying the discussion about the situation around Ghajar was conducted "with a view to ensuing a speedy withdrawal" of Israeli forces from the area.

The village has been occupied by Israel since the end of the latter's offensive against Lebanese militia Hezbollah.

During the meeting which was held at the UNIFIL headquarters in Lebanon's border town of Naqoura, Israel provided maps of minefields it had laid in southern Lebanon, said the statement.

The full disclosure of the minefields has been repeatedly demanded by the Lebanese government and Hezbollah for years.

UNIFIL has passed on those maps to the UN Mine Action Coordination Center and the Lebanese army for review, said the statement.