Iran Might Be Attacked In Air/Missile War; India Is To Become An Asian Super-Power:.

*** Experts Say An Alternative To War Would Be A Blockade Of Iran

*** A Source In Tehran Says All Such Forecasts Will Prove To Be Wrong As Pres. Ahmadi-Nejad has A Different Scenario - Of Western Powers Falling And New 'Sunset' Giants Shortly Rising; He Believes The Mahdi Is Coming Back Soon To Rule The World On The Basis Of Real Justice To The Faithful; But The Neo-Salafis Say It Is The Sunni Caliphate Which Is Coming; The Latter See This In Hamas The MB, North-Waziristan, Etc.

*** The US Deal To Extend Civilian Nuke Technology To India Could Open Up $100 Bn In Business For Americans In The Energy Sector

NICOSIA - There are indications that the US, whether at the head of a coalition of powers or unilaterally, might attack Iran by air and missiles. While some US experts predict this may take place before the end of this summer, others say it would happen much later. But, while many others do not expect such a war in the near future, they agree that China might be the ultimate target of the current tensions between Washington and Tehran over the latter's nuclear ambitions.

One Western expert tells APS the air and missile war against Iran is not only to destroy - or seriously damage - the nuclear installations of the Shi'ite theocracy but also to contain China well ahead of it becoming a much bigger power in strategic and economic terms. It is for such an objective that the US intends to help India become an Asian super-power (see overleaf).

This and other Western experts tell APS that, while the Americans appear to be trapped in a chaotic Iraq, the US will attack Iran in any case - even if Tehran manages to have a diplomatic deal through the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), through Russia or through any of the European powers - such as Germany which now is in favour of such an arrangement to delay an American hit (see rim3-IraqGovt-Mar13-06 & ood2-Iraq-OilSector&Iran-Feb20-06).

Russia on March 7 indicated it had dropped its proposed compromise over Iran's nuclear programme, after coming under sustained pressure from the US and the EU. A two-day visit to Washington by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov marked serious strains in US-Russia relations over a range of issues - including Iran, a newly elected Palestinian government led by Hamas, bilateral trade and energy security.

Lavrov deftly dropped Moscow's new initiative even before dinner on March 6 with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and an unusual White House meeting, in protocol terms, with President George W. Bush on March 7.

Under an interim compromise floated by Moscow, Iran would have been allowed to enrich a small amount of uranium in a research plant, while Russia provided Iran with industrial quantities for its sole electricity generating reactor. The US and EU loudly protested, saying Iran should not be allowed to develop any uranium enrichment capability of its own, at least for several years.

Ms Rice called the head of the IAEA, Muhammad ElBaradei, who was in Vienna chairing a board meeting on Iran on March 6-8. On March 7 the very existence of the Russian idea was denied. Lavrov said: "There is no compromise, [or] new Russian proposal". Ms Rice said: "The Russians did not tell us of any new proposal that they have made to the Iranians".

US Vice-President Dick Cheney on March 7 warned Iran that the international community was "prepared to impose meaningful consequences" if it continued "to defy the world" with its nuclear ambitions. Ms Rice on March 9, a day after Tehran's nuclear dispute was sent to the UN Security Council (UNSC), told a congressional hearing a nuclear-armed Iran would be hundreds of times more threatening to US interests.

As allies considered action against Tehran, Ms Rice indicated that Iran was already the US's biggest challenge because of its alleged "meddling" in several parts of the Middle East.

Given the narrow range of options available and the difficulty of maintaining international unity, UNSC involvement on Iran will not make it easier to address the nuclear dilemma. US and EU officials say Tehran could, within one year, master the uranium enrichment technology for an atomic bomb. So, while diplomats in Europe speak of incremental pressure at the UN, stopping Iran's quest for the technology will in practice require an accelerated approach.

The first action, expected shortly, is the easiest part: a presidential statement at the UNSC urging Iran to cease enrichment, with a deadline of weeks rather than months. If Tehran fails to respond, the UNSC would consider targeted sanctions. But it is at this point that the UN front on Iran is likely to unravel, with Russia and China resisting sanctions.

US Undersecretary for State Nicholas Burns last week outlined how the US had few options other than military action because of the lack of international support for significant sanctions. He told a Washington think-tank the US had no illusions about being able to resolve this crisis through the UNSC and was in the process of seeking to put together an ad hoc coalition of "concerned countries". From Burns' briefing, it was apparent the Bush administration relied on making loud threats in the hope that Iran would capitulate. If the theocracy does not retreat, then the US would resort to what it has not spelled out publicly. Divisions at the UN are likely to confuse the message Tehran is receiving and could thus reinforce those in the theocracy arguing for confrontation.

The nuclear crisis comes at a time when Tehran is feeling confident, encouraged by high oil prices and strong political influence across the region. Iranian officials openly suggest that Tehran could use its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories to cause unrest and harm US interests. ElBaradei is still hoping the search for a compromise will continue. But the EU and US dismissed a recent Iranian offer to restrict but not terminate its uranium enrichment and sign up to a binding regime of spot checks by IAEA inspectors. European diplomats have warned that running 20-160 centrifuges would still allow Iran to perfect the uranium enrichment technology, and Tehran would later try to bargain for more substantial experiments.

The FT on March 10 quoted Ali-Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, as saying of a Tehran offer: "It was a very big window of opportunity, which the Europeans did not pay attention to. The Europeans are letting the Americans take their multilateral policy hostage. We have not received any positive response from the Europeans and what has happened [at the IAEA] is an indication they have ignored this positive step from the Iranian side".

With the US and EU insisting on a freeze, Russia has warned that the crisis could lead to a repeat of the Iraq conflict. Lavrov on March 10 was quoted as saying: "It looks so deja vu, you know. I don't believe we should engage in something that might become a self-fulfilling prophecy". Russia is also upset by the recent US-India civilian nuclear partnership.

Paul Pillar, head of CIA intelligence analysis for the Middle East during the Iraq war who resigned in 2005, on March 9 said the CIA had warned the US administration in early 2003 that an invasion of Iraq was likely to "increase the pace and security" of Iran's WMD work. Speaking at the Middle East Institute, he said the CIA had warned Iraq might try to revive its WMD programme five to 10 years after US occupation unless a security umbrella existed. These and other warnings were ignored, he said (see rim3-IraqGovt-Mar13-06).