The US has accused Iran of adding to Iraq’s sectarian strife

Iran says it will take part in a planned security conference in Iraq, to be attended by the US, if it is “in Iraq’s best interests”. Senior Iranian official Ali Larijani said Tehran was reviewing the proposal but that it supported “solving problems of Iraq by all means”.

Iraq’s PM Nouri al-Maliki has announced the meeting will be on 10 March.

The US says it will attend the talks that include Syria and Iran - accused by the US of fuelling strife in Iraq.

Mr Maliki’s office said he had sent out invitations to the five permanent UN Security Council members, the Arab League, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, Egypt and Iraq’s neighbouring countries, including Syria and Iran.

A statement from the office read: “We hope the meeting will bring political backing for the national unity government in providing security and stability.”

Diplomacy reasserted

Mr Larijani, head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said: “We are reviewing the proposal. We support solving problems of Iraq by all means and we will attend the conference if it is expedient.

“We believe Iraq’s security is related to all its neighbouring countries and they have to help settle the situation.”

Iran will attend if it is “expedient”, said Mr Larijani

The BBC’s Pam O’Toole says his words are relatively positive but fall short of an outright acceptance and this may be because Iran is trying to work out what the US agenda is.

She says some Iranians will remember how Tehran co-operated in a summit on Afghanistan in 2001 only to be denounced shortly afterwards by President George W Bush as being part of “the axis of evil”.

The US has been stepping up pressure on Iran recently, accusing it of supplying Shia militants in Iraq with weapons to attack US forces, an allegation Iran rejected as “baseless propaganda”.

But the Bush administration has been under pressure in Congress and from the findings of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to include Syria and Iran in dialogue to stabilise Iraq.

Our correspondent says Iran may feel its inclusion in the guest list is at least a recognition from Washington that it cannot solve Iraq’s problems without Tehran’s co-operation.

The official Syrian news agency, Sana, has confirmed Damascus officials will attend the meeting.

Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Labid Abawi told Associated Press he saw no sign that any country would refuse the invitation.

Diplomatic push

The last time there were even informal talks between the US and Iran was in late 2004 when then US Secretary of State Colin Powell and his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharrazi, sat next to each other at dinner in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday: “We hope that all governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region.”

Asked about face-to-face meetings with other delegates, state department spokesman Sean McCormack would not “exclude any particular interaction”.

The conference is likely to be at non-ministerial level.

However, Ms Rice said there could then be a second meeting in April of ministers from countries attending the first, plus others in the G8 grouping.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the latest developments show, in a small way, that Ms Rice has trumped Vice-President Dick Cheney and that diplomacy is reasserting itself in Washington.

Not long ago, a retired U.S. general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against the former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s policies in Iraq said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack.”We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.

His hopes became true.

U.S. stepped up recently its anti-Iran rhetoric despite repetitive assertions by the Bush administration’s officials that it has no plans to go to war against the Islamic republic.

But what raised fears that such attack is highly likely before Bush leaves office was the New Yorker Magazine report published in its latest issue stating that a Pentagon panel has been set up within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months to draw up and finalize plans for a launching a bomb attack against Iran that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from the president.

The initial task of such panel, according to the report, was destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and ousting Nejad’s government, but eventually it became also focused on identifying targets in Iran suspected of being involved in anti-occupation fighting in Iraq.

But while experts warn that tension in the Gulf region raises fears that a military confrontation between Iran and the U.S. is becoming increasingly likely before President George W. Bush leaves office, The Sunday Times learnt that at least five of America’s most senior military commanders and admirals plan to resign to avoid being forced to approve plans for another war inthe Middle East they see as “reckless”.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” The Times quoted a source with close ties to British intelligence as saying, adding that a military strike against Iran has caused deep divisions inside the Pentagon.

“There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

“All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

If this happened, it would be an unprecedented incident in the U.S. Army.

According to Robert Gates, the U.S. Defence Secretary;

“American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the views of his senior commanders.

Contrary to recent remarks by General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, in which he claimed that there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran, a consultant and a former senior intelligence official both said that U.S. military teams have already crossed into Iran through Iraq, seeking Iranian operatives who’d help in military operation against Tehran, also stated the report published earlier by the New Yorker Magazine which was described by Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman as “misleading”.

“The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran. To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous.

“The United States has been very clear with respect to its concerns regarding specific Iranian government activities. The president has repeatedly stated publicly that this country is going to work with allies in the region to address those concerns through diplomatic efforts.”

Pace played down what’s being said about the involvement of top Iranian government officials in the fighting in Iraq, challenging what’s been repeatedly said by the American President.

Pace believes that claims implicating the Iranian government in activities linked to “insurgency” in Iraq was “far from clear”.

Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, commented on the contradiction between Pace’s remarks and the President’s, arguing that it demonstrates serious discontent among top officials.

“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said.

“It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”

The Pentagon refuses to clarify the government’s position regarding a possible attack on Iran, maintaining that it has contingency plans for dozens of potential conflicts around the world and that all are subject to regular review.

A huge demonstration filled the streets of central London today, calling for all occupying troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, no replacement of Britain’s nuclear weapons system and no attack on Iran.

Over 100,000 people joined the protest, organised by the Stop the War Coalition, CND and the British Muslim Initiative.

The march once again showed the depth, breadth and vibrancy of the anti-war movement. Thousands of students, trade unionists, Muslims, Christians and campaigners joined the protest.

Lindsey German, the convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, told marchers, “Tony Blair says the war on Iraq is not his fault. He took us into war on lies. He is responsible for the death of 655,000 Iraqis

“Blair wants to site the Star Wars US nuclear defence system here. He wants to spend money on Trident not on hospitals and schools.

“Blair had to announce the withdrawal of 1,500 troops from Iraq this week. Our movement made him announce that.

“They want to send 1,000 extra troops to Afghanistan. We want the troops home from there too. This is an unsustainable and unwinnable war.

“We are fed up with a government that is addicted to war. This war is spreading from, Afghanistan to Iraq, Somalia and Lebanon. Now they want to attack Iran.

“If they do we will be on the streets in even greater numbers. We will demonstrate, strike and take action until all these wars are at an end.

John McDonnell MP, the left wing challenger for the Labour leadership, told the marchers, “This tremendous demonstration shows the anger of the British people.

“We have come together every time because we want a peace agenda. We want all British occupying troops out of Iraq immediately and we don’t want any threats to Iran.

“We want a peace prime minister, not a warmonger in 10 Downing Street.”

Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, said, “London is proud to have this demonstration here today. The overwhelming majority of its population oppose war and the next generation of nuclear weapons.

“The biggest threat humanity faces is climate change. Any government that doesn’t make that its priority is betraying the people. A new world is being formed of people who don’t accept the US agenda.”

Respect MP George Galloway said, “Tony Blair must go now before he does any more damage. Not content with the death and destruction he has caused all over the world, he is planning with Israel and George Bush another war against a Muslim country - Iran.

“I warn him that there will be riots in Britain if he takes us into that war.”

Solidarity was brought to the marchers from Judith LeBlanc, the co-chair of the US United for Peace and Justice and Augusto Montiel, a Venezuelan MP.

Labour MPs Jeremy Corbyn, Bob Wareing, John Trickett, Green MEP Caroline Lucas and Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans all also spoke.

The support of trade unions for the movement was made clear by the speeches of Paul Mackney, the UCU lecturers’ union joint general secretary, Billy Hayes, the CWU communication workers’ union general secretary, and Keith Sonnet, the assistant general secretary of the Unison public sector workers’ union.

Rose Gentle of the Military Families Against the War also spoke, as did playwright David Edgar, Doctor Daoud Abdullah of the Muslim Council, Ismail Patel of the British Muslim Initiative, and Noreen Fatima of Stop the War’s Muslim Network.

Andrew Murray, the chair of the Stop the War Coalition, stated that the movement would stay on the streets against the occupation and any threats to attack Iran. He called on people to attend the Stop the War Coalition’s People’s Assembly in central London on Tuesday 20 March.

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic

In a move that reflects Washington’s growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran’s border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran’s 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA’s classified budget but is now “no great secret”, according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: “The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime.”

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.

Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as “mercenary elements” in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey’s outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: “The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity.”

Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.

The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.

A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to “unleash” the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.

The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: “A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage.”

At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran’s southern coastal waters.

The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.

While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility.

“It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power,” Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. “All options are still on the table.”

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business.

SYDNEY, Australia — Vice President Dick Cheney left open the possibility of U.S. military action against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, saying Saturday that “all options are still on the table.”

Cheney, speaking at a joint news conference with Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard, said that the United States was working with it allies to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear weapons programs, and that it was Washington’s preference for that to happen peacefully.

“But all options are still on the table,” Cheney told reporters, reiterating his administration’s long-standing position on Iran.

The next step toward getting Iran to abandon its nuclear programs was still being debated, he said.

“It would be a serious mistake if a nation such as Iran became a nuclear power,” Cheney said.

Cheney said Iran has sponsored terrorism in the Middle East, and he accused Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of making inflammatory statements.

Cheney did not specify which of Ahmadinejad’s remarks he was referring to.

Iran is expanding uranium enrichment, the IAEA says

Top diplomats from six key nations are meeting in London to discuss further moves to make Iran comply with demands to end its nuclear programme. The talks come after the UN nuclear watchdog confirmed Iran had ignored a deadline to suspend nuclear activities.

The five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany will seek consensus on how to put more pressure on Tehran.

But on Sunday President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would not go back on its nuclear programme.

The country’s nuclear development was “a train on a one-way track with no room for stopping, reverse gear or braking,” Mr Ahmadinejad said.

Iran denies Western claims it is secretly trying to build nuclear arms, saying its nuclear programme is for peaceful, energy-producing purposes.

Travel ban

Monday’s meeting of diplomats from the US, Russia, China, France, the UK plus Germany will discuss how to make Iran meet UN demands to halt its nuclear enrichment activities.

POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS New UN resolution on tougher economic sanctions, tabled by US or European allies US pressure on Europeans to step up bilateral sanctions New initiative to get Iran back to talks Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue

The Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran in December, setting a 60-day deadline for it to stop enriching uranium.

But a report last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that Iran was instead expanding its enrichment programme.

Enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, but highly-enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear bombs.

The delegates will discuss new steps that could be taken to force Iran into line.

These, says the BBC’s Jonathan Marcus, could include travel bans on named individuals associated with Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes.

The US is also eager to discuss ways in which bilateral pressure can be applied on Tehran, with issues such as European export credits for business with Iran and arms sales from Russia on the agenda.

But, our correspondent says, the meeting is only the first step in what looks set to be an incremental process aimed at getting the Iranians back to the negotiating table.

On Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US would hold direct talks with Iran if it suspended uranium enrichment.

Her comments came a day after Vice-President Dick Cheney renewed a warning that the use of force could be an option if Iran continued to defy the West.

Iranian media say the country has successfully launched its first rocket capable of reaching space. But officials later said it was for research and would not go into orbit.

Experts say if Iran has fired a rocket into space it would cause alarm abroad as it would mean scientists had crossed important technological barriers.

Iran has made little secret of its desire to become a space power and already has a satellite in orbit launched by the Russians.

The latest launch - if confirmed - comes at a time of mounting tension between Tehran and the West over Iran’s controversial nuclear programme.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany are due to meet on Monday to discuss the possibility of more sanctions over the nuclear issue.

On Sunday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered another defiant speech insisting there is no going back on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Iran’s potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region Sir Richard Dalton, former UK ambassador to Iran

In a speech in Tehran, he likened his country’s nuclear programme to a train with no brakes and no reverse gear.

One of his deputy foreign ministers, Manouchehr Mohammadi, said they had prepared themselves for any situation arising from the issue, even for war.

Meanwhile, foreign ministers from seven Muslim states meeting in Pakistan have called for a diplomatic solution to the “dangerous” stand-off.

“It is vital that all issues must be resolved through diplomacy and there must be no resort to use of force,” said a statement issued after talks involving ministers from Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Missile technology

Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying: “The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space.”

Ahmadinejad has claimed Iran’s right to nuclear technology

It quoted the head of Iran’s aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that “the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence”.

However, Ali Akbar Golrou, executive director of the same facility, was later quoted by Fars news agency as saying the craft launched by was a sub-orbital rocket for scientific research.

“What was announced by the head of the research centre was the news of launching this sounding rocket,” Mr Golrou said.

It would not remain in orbit but could rise to about 150km (94 miles) before a parachute-assisted descent to Earth.

No pictures of the reported launch have been shown on Iranian state TV, and no Western countries have confirmed tracking any such test-firing.

Some Western diplomats suspect Iran may have backtracked on the announcement when it realised what negative publicity this would bring at a sensitive time, says the BBC’s Frances Harrison in Tehran.

The reports come a day after Iran’s Defence Minister spoke of plans to build a satellite launcher and join the space club. Also, an Iranian official quoted in Aviation Week earlier this month said Iran would soon test a new satellite launcher.

Britain’s former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a launch could destabilise the Middle East.

“It is a matter of concern,” he said. “Iran’s potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region, and of course if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran’s obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.”

Military experts believe that if Iran has sent a rocket into space it means scientists have mastered the technology needed to cross the atmospheric barrier.

In practice, they say, that means there is no technological block to Iran building longer range missiles now, something that will be of great international concern.

In 2005, Iran’s Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket.

But shortly afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle of their own, and last month they announced they were ready to test it soon.

    TEHRAN, Feb. 24 (Xinhua) — Iranian Foreign Minister said on Saturday that the United States was in no position to launch military strike against the Islamic Republic, stressing that talks were the only choice to resolve the nuclear standoff.

    ”We do not see the U.S. in a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers by starting another war in the region,” Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters during a press conference with his Bahraini counterpart, in a response to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s warnings over Tehran earlier Saturday.

    ”But the Islamic Republic of Iran has prepared for two scenarios. We prefer the second one which is based on dialogue and constructive interaction,” Mottaki added.

    During his trip to Australia, Cheney Saturday refused to rule out the possibility of taking military action against Iran, saying that “all options are still on the table” over Tehran’s nuclear programs.

    Cheney said Washington was still working with other countries to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear programs and prefers to achieve the goal peacefully.

    ”But all options are still on the table,” Cheney said, adding that it is still being debated in the U.S. how to move next to deal with Tehran over the nuclear issue.

    In an interview with U.S. media, carried out in Australia and released on Friday, Cheney said that the United States will “do everything” it can to stop Iran’s nuclear programs.

    Mottaki also stressed that dialogue was the only choice to resolve the current deadlock, urging the U.S. and its allies to return to the negotiation table.

    ”The only way to reach a solution for disputes is negotiations and talks. Therefore, we want the London meeting to make a brave decision and resume talks with Iran,” said the minister.

    The United States, along with some other Western countries, has been accusing Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of civilian nuclear programs. Tehran has rejected such accusations, saying that its nuclear programs are designed for peaceful use of nuclear energy.

    The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1737 on Dec. 23,2006, demanding Iran stop all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities including research and development, and work on all heavy water-related projects, in 60 days.

    Iran refused to heed the Security Council’s demand by the deadline that fell on Feb. 21, 2007.

Mr Hakim: “They tied my hands and blindfolded me… “

The eldest son of an influential Shia politician says US troops treated him roughly when they briefly arrested him near the Iran-Iraq border on Friday. Ammar al-Hakim says he was targeted for arrest, rudely bound and blindfolded.

The US military says he was arrested because his convoy was suspicious, but was treated with “dignity and respect”.

In Najaf, thousands have protested at the arrest. Mr Hakim’s father is Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

The US has repeatedly said that Iraq’s Shia militias are being armed with weapons smuggled in from Iran.

US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad swiftly apologised for the incident.

The BBC’s Jane Peel, in Baghdad, says the diplomat was doubtless keen to head off a row with Shia leaders working with the US on the new Iraq security plan.

‘Rude treatment’

But Mr Hakim told a news conference in Najaf: “Senior officials intended to arrest me, and these officials gave instructions to personnel at the site.”

“They tied my hands and blindfolded me,” he said, adding that American soldiers had treated him “rudely”.

A number of weapons belonging to his guards, several mobile phones and some cash had not yet been returned, Reuters news agency quoted Mr Hakim as saying.

US military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Chris Garver said Mr al-Hakim’s convoy was stopped as it re-entered Iraq near the Mehran border crossing with Iran, 130km (70 miles) east of Baghdad.

Lt Carver said that the vehicles were stopped because they “met specific criteria for further investigation in an area where smuggling activity has taken place in the past”.

The officer said Mr Hakim was arrested when people travelling in the convoy “did not co-operate with coalition forces and displayed suspicious activities”.

Compound raided

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is the leader of the largest party in Iraq’s parliament, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

The party was founded in 1982 by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim’s brother Mohammed Bakr al-Hakim in Tehran.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim took over the party when Mohammed Bakr was killed in an al-Qaeda car bombing in August 2003.

Ammar al-Hakim heads the Al-Mihrab Martyr’s Foundation, in honour of his uncle, and is seen as the deputy leader of the political movement.

Last December, the Hakim residential compound in Baghdad was raided by US forces who arrested two Iranians said to be members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Australia is a key member in the US-led coalition in Iraq

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has renewed a warning that the use of force could be an option if Iran continues to defy the West over uranium enrichment. Mr Cheney, speaking in Australia, said diplomacy was the preferred course.

But in a newspaper interview he backed US Senator John McCain’s view that the only thing worse than a military clash would be an Iran with nuclear arms.

Iran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

Mr Cheney, a noted hawk in the Bush administration, endorsed Mr McCain’s stance in an interview with The Australian daily newspaper.

The Iranian people are vigilant and will defend all their rights to the end Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iranian President Your say: Dealing with Iran Quick guide: Iran nuclear row Tension over Iran’s plans

And speaking at a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, he also spoke of US concerns about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and warned that “all options are on the table” in terms of how the US would respond.

“They have made some fairly inflammatory statements,” he said. “They appear to be pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.”

Mr Cheney spoke of concern at Iran’s “fairly aggressive” role in the Middle East, and its flouting of a UN deadline to stop uranium enrichment.

Permanent UN Security Council members and Germany will meet on Monday to discuss further sanctions against Iran following its decision to ignore last Thursday’s deadline.

Resistance vow

On Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran will defend its nuclear programme to the end, and must not show weakness “in front of the enemy”.

“The Iranian people are vigilant and will defend all their rights to the end,” Iranian news agency Isna quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying, at a rally in northern Iran.

POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS New UN resolution on tougher economic sanctions, tabled by US or European allies US pressure on Europeans to step up bilateral sanctions New initiative to get Iran back to talks Q&A: Iran and nuclear issue

“If we show weakness in front of the enemy the expectations will increase but if we stand against them, because of this resistance they will retreat.”

The IAEA concluded in a report on Thursday that Iran was expanding rather than halting its enrichment programme, defying a UN resolution of December 2006.

Iran says the UN call for it to stop uranium enrichment is unacceptable as it has no legal basis.

Tehran denies Western claims it is secretly trying to build nuclear arms, saying its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful, energy-producing purposes.

While enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, highly enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs.

Australia is a key member of the US-led coalition in Iraq, with about 1,400 troops in and around the country.

Speaking after his meeting with Mr Cheney, Mr Howard warned of the possibility of Iran’s influence in the Middle East region growing if coalition troops are pulled out of Iraq too soon.

He told reporters that instability in Iraq resulting from an early coalition withdrawal could tip the regional power balance in Iran’s favour, with disastrous consequences:

“I think Iran would benefit enormously from that and that would be to many in the Middle East, not just the Israelis, that would be a nightmare scenario.”