Replies

Axis of Proliferators

August 19, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
Henry Sokolski

On Aug. 27, the U.S. will join China, Russia, North Korea, Japan and South Korea in negotiations over how best to neutralize the North Korean nuclear threat. One country that's sure to be watching is Iran.

Earlier this summer, I attended a meeting in Geneva that included Tehran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency and several members of Iran's Expediency Council. After the formal session, they pulled me aside. The one question -- the only question -- they pressed me about was what Washington planned to do about North Korea.

Since then, Iranian diplomats have been consulting European officials. Tehran has begun developing a grand negotiated nuclear bargain of its own. The stakes are high. If, like North Korea, Iran succeeds in getting the world to accept its nuclear program and is allowed to finish its nearly completed "peaceful" light water reactor (which after little more than a year of operation can make over 50 bombs worth of near weapons-grade plutonium), its neighbors are sure to follow suit.

Saudi Arabia, which helped bankroll Pakistan's bomb project and has medium-range rockets of its own, has already had officials visit Islamabad's bomb factory in Kahuta. There's even been talk about Pakistan loaning some of its nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, keeping them under Pakistani control (as the U.S. does with its weapons in Germany). Egypt and Syria, meanwhile, are planning nuclear desalinization plants (i.e., big reactors producing material which could be used for nuclear weapons).

Algeria, which was caught in 1991 covertly developing a reactor that might make bombs, now has it on line. Finally, Turkey, a close friend to Israel, has made it clear that Iran going nuclear would force Ankara to secure new "security assurances." Like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, which have either tried or considered producing nuclear weapons, all of these nations have or could quickly acquire nuclear-capable missiles.

This is not a world the U.S. and its allies want. They probably could identify adversaries and friends in it. But it would be possible only to form a vague idea of how well-armed they might be. And friends, when called upon, would be more inclined to go their own way. Too much would be reminiscent of 1914 but with one big difference -- an increasing number of conflicts would be spring-loaded to go nuclear.

What must the U.S. do to avoid this? How can it convince Iran and the others that violating their nuclear nonproliferation pledges is a bad idea? First, it would help if Washington were clearer about its own view of North Korea -- the most egregious violator of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Certainly, Undersecretary of State John Bolton was lucid enough when he spoke in Seoul on July 31: "To give in to [Kim Jong Il's] extortionist demands would only encourage him, and perhaps more ominously, other would-be tyrants around the world."

He went on to explain that the best way to bolster upcoming six-way talks, was to have the U.N. Security Council take up the IAEA's six-month-old violation report to the council and identify North Korea as an NPT outlaw. This would at least dispel the fiction Pyongyang is promoting that it should be treated as an equal by the other parties to the negotiations (which the IAEA has not found to have violated the treaty). Mr. Bolton also highlighted President Bush's global strategic weapons technology interdiction effort, the Proliferation Security Initiative. Top on every participating nation's target list for this effort, he noted, were North Korea and Iran.

Mr. Bolton's points angered North Korea, which depicted him as "human scum." The White House, in turn, backed Mr. Bolton, saying he spoke for the administration. This support, however, was soon downgraded. Earlier this month at the U.N. mission in New York, U.S. Ambassador Jack Pritchard met with North Korea's U.N. Ambassador Han Song-ryol and reassured him that Mr. Bolton's comments were strictly his "personal" opinion. Mr. Han notified the Japanese press on Aug. 10 and the following day North Korea all but demanded Mr. Bolton's resignation.

The question now is, how does the administration view Mr. Bolton's comments? Do they have the administration's backing or do they merely reflect, as one official put it, "a point of view held by many Americans"?

Iran and North Korea seem ready to exploit the lack of clarity. This month, U.S. and Japanese newspapers have detailed Iran and North Korea's cooperative efforts to develop nuclear warheads and Taepodong-2 nuclear-capable rockets (designed to fly over 6,000 miles). The number of North Korean weapons experts in Iran is now so large, one paper reported, the North Koreans have a seaside community in Iran of their own. Iranian nuclear experts, meanwhile, have already flown to Pyongyang to consult on how to handle IAEA inspections and the possibility of being found in violation of the NPT. The IAEA Board of Governors is set to address these issues next month in Vienna.

To curb the mischief that might be done here, the White House ought to reiterate its support for what it claimed were administration views on using the Security Council to find North Korea in violation of the NPT. If this is not done, the six-way talks will simply become an excuse for keeping the U.N. from enforcing the NPT. North Korea loathes the NPT and IAEA inspectors (whom they see as biased) and hates the idea of bringing their violations before the U.N. As far as Pyongyang is concerned, it has withdrawn from the NPT and should not be held accountable for what it did while it was a member of the treaty. Count on Iran and other would-be bomb makers to be watching this carefully.

Second, the U.S. can hardly ask others to be firm against North Korea's nuclear nonproliferation violations or to block the start-up of Iran's power station if Washington allows construction of the two large U.S.-designed reactors President Clinton promised Pyongyang under the 1994 Agreed Framework to proceed. Work on these reactors (which like Iran's, are prodigious producers of near weapons-grade plutonium) continues. This should end.

The only way these reactors can be completed is with key U.S. components that President Bush can only approve for export by waiving U.S. legal prohibitions against doing so for NPT violators. Despite all of the Bush administration's tough talk, Japan and South Korea continue to pour concrete in hopes Mr. Bush will waive the law. At any time, President Bush could announce that he has no intention of doing so. The sooner he does so the better.

Finally, it would help if, before the six-way talks begin, the U.S. makes it clear what it believes the talks' minimum objectives are and when these objectives need to be met. If North Korea must disclose and dismantle its nuclear program, when, at a minimum, must this be accomplished? Also, what topics should be off the table? Is the U.S. unwilling to give Pyongyang assurances that it will not attack it militarily? Or is this an open question?

Some (including Iran and North Korea) might see the talks as an end in themselves. So long as we are negotiating, they hope, Washington can hardly risk killing the talks by taking any adverse actions (e.g., terminating the reactors, interdicting weapons-related shipments, identifying Pyongyang at the U.N. as an NPT-violator, etc.). Moreover, the longer the talks go without resolving any of the key issues, the more likely it is that the U.S. will be forced by the others at the table to make concessions, setting additional advantageous precedents for Iran.

Cynics, on the other hand, are already arguing that the talks are simply designed to kick the can on the entire set of axis nuclear headaches until sometime after Mr. Bush wins re-election. The problem here is that they might be right. Iran and North Korea's misbehavior, however, will hardly wait that long. If Washington thinks it can be tough and pull out of the talks after being vague, coy or quiet about its ultimate goals and general time table for 15 months, it certainly knows something that no one -- including the other parties to the negotiations and the world's proliferators -- yet has sound cause to believe. Under these circumstances, Iran's proposed grand bargain and nuclear program should be fully ripe for another crisis by November.

Mr. Sokolski is the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9444

US accuses Syria and Iran for interference in Iraq

World News
Aug 19, 2003

TIKRIT, Iraq — The top American official in Iraq accused Syria of allowing "terrorists" to cross the border, and U.S. forces on Tuesday reported another attack, this time from assailants firing from behind an ambulance.

No U.S. soldiers were injured in Monday night's attack in which assailants driving alongside an ambulance for cover fired on U.S. forces in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces, a military official said Tuesday.

The attack came shortly after a bomb blew up along the same road in Tikrit, 120 miles north of Baghdad, Lt. Col. Steve Russell of the 4th Infantry Division said.

"We don't believe that the ambulance itself was engaged" in the firing on the troops, Russell said. "This is not the first time we've seen ambulances used in cross fire."

But Maj. Josslyn Aberle, also of the 4th Infantry, said that while no gunfire came from the ambulance, soldiers found an automatic rifle and ammunition inside. The three occupants, one of whom was wounded, were detained for questioning.

L. Paul Bremer said in remarks published Tuesday that Syria, which opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, was allowing "foreign terrorists" to sneak across the border into Iraq.

"We held talks with the Syrians in this regard, we hope to see better cooperation," Bremer told the London-based Arabic newspaper Al Hayat.

Bremer also said he was "still worried" over Iran's meddling in Iraq's affairs, accusing Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Iranian intelligence of actively working against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

"This is irresponsible conduct and runs counter to Iraq's interests. We believe that a free Iraq must not be subject to any interference by its neighbors," Bremer was quoted as saying.

An audiotape, purportedly from an al-Qaida militant, calls on Muslims around the world to travel to Iraq and fight the U.S.-led occupation.

The speaker on the audiotape, obtained by The Associated Press and aired Monday on Al-Arabiya television, claimed to be Abdur Rahman al-Najdi, a Saudi-born militant sought by the United States.

A wanted poster for al-Najdi was circulated by U.S. forces in Afghanistan earlier this year, alongside others for Osama bin Laden, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and other militants. Western intelligence sources believe the Taliban, al-Qaida and fighters loyal to Afghan rebel leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar are working together to oppose U.S.-led forces and the Afghan government.

The tape was thought to be the first public call by bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network for Muslims to join the fight in Iraq.

In Washington, a U.S. official familiar with the audio message could not confirm its authenticity. However, the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said al-Najdi is a known senior al-Qaida propagandist and financier who has released messages in the past to boost the morale within al-Qaida's ranks.

On Tuesday, a suspicious fire continued to rage on Iraq's main northern oil export pipeline into Turkey, the U.S. Army said. Accounts varied over whether the blaze was accidental or an act of sabotage. It would take at least 10 days to repair the damaged pipeline once the fire is extinguished, U.S. military officials said.

Bremer said Monday that the sabotage of water, petroleum and electrical lines was slowing U.S. efforts to rebuild Iraq.

"It's people who do not share the vision of a free Iraq with a vibrant economy the president has set forth and which Iraqis share," Bremer said on CNN. "These are probably people left over from the old regime who are simply fighting a rear guard action."

In the past three months, such attacks have cost billions of dollars in damage, according to Bremer. But he warned that the United States would not be pushed out of Iraq.

"I think these bitter-enders that we are faced with live in a fantasy world, where they think somehow the Baathists are going to come back," Bremer said, referring to members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. "They are wrong. We'll leave when the job is done. They are not going to chase us out, they are not destined to succeed."

Most people in Baghdad had water service Tuesday after saboteurs blew an enormous hole in a 5-foot-diameter water main in the north of the city.

In other attacks, a U.S. soldier was killed by an explosive device in Baghdad on Monday, but the military said it was not clear if the blast was the result of a hostile act.

In a separate incident Monday, two 4th Infantry soldiers were wounded when their patrol was fired on with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire in the town of Balad, the army said. Both soldiers were evacuated to an Army support hospital in stable condition.

North of Tikrit, Iraqi police and fire brigades discovered six bodies from an explosion two days earlier at an ammunition storage site. It wasn't clear what caused the blast, which was followed by secondary explosions, but Army officials blamed looters. One other body was recovered at the site Monday.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_1818.shtml

Could Cooperation With U.S. Put Tehran in Al Qaeda's Crosshairs?

August 18, 2003
Stratfor
Stratfor.com

Iran's national security chief claims that country, like the United States, has been a target of al Qaeda plots. Tehran may be manipulating the facts, but if it steps up cooperation with the United States against al Qaeda, it could in fact become a target in the future.

Analysis

The secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rowhani, says Iran has foiled several al Qaeda attacks, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported late Aug. 17. The agency quoted Hassan as saying that Iran had been battling al Qaeda for some time, and that Tehran had arrested hundreds of suspected militants.

Rowhani's statements are a direct signal to the United States that Iran is cooperating in the U.S. war against al Qaeda. Tehran and Washington are currently in talks focused on two issues: the situation in Iraq and Iran's harboring of al Qaeda members. In reality, it is unclear if Tehran has ever been targeted by al Qaeda, or if it will aid Washington's efforts to dismantle the organization. The risk for Iran, however, is that its cooperation with the United States could prompt al Qaeda to retaliate against the country itself.

Iran's relationship with al Qaeda is of prime importance to the United States. Washington believes one key to pre-empting further attacks is to deny the group sanctuary, especially in countries hostile to the United States. Washington also believes this will be vital in preventing al Qaeda from regrouping.

Iran -- an Islamic state that is adjacent to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and shares some of al Qaeda's goals -- makes an attractive host country for the group. Like Osama bin Laden's network, Tehran wants to see the United States withdraw from the Arabian Peninsula. Iran aspires to become the regional hegemon, but it cannot do so as long as the U.S. military dominates the area. Second, Iran sees instability stirred by al Qaeda in countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen as advantageous to its influence over these states.

There are, however, reasons for discord between Iran and al Qaeda. For one thing, the militant group hopes to establish a Sunni Islamic caliphate, but Iran is predominantly Shia. Moreover, an al Qaeda-inspired regime in Riyadh ultimately would rival Tehran's influence in the region. These issues are real, though can perhaps be glossed over in the short term. In addition, Iranian diplomats tell Stratfor that al Qaeda has long plotted and carried out attacks against Iranian assets -- including its airliners -- inside the country.

Iranian officials are now in senior-level talks with the United States, and recent events point to progress on the terms of cooperation. On Aug. 17, IRNA reported that Iraq would reopen its embassy in Tehran on Sept. 1, 2003 -- a move that suggests Iran is willing to expand diplomatic ties with U.S.-occupied Iraq. It also indicates an indirect acceptance of the U.S. rule in Baghdad, as well as perhaps a new avenue for talks and cooperation.

Two days earlier, the U.S. State Department announced that it would close two of the Washington offices of the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MKO), an Iranian opposition group. Tehran has been angered by the U.S.-MKO alliance since U.S. military troops seized Baghdad. Washington's attempts to distance itself from the group, which is based in Iraq and has fought a decades-long war against the clerical regime in Tehran, signal a concession to Tehran.

The U.S.-Iranian talks are intended to prevent a clash between the two countries and to reduce U.S. anxiety about Tehran's relationship with al Qaeda. During a meeting with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in late May, Rowhani claimed that Iran had been battling al Qaeda even before Sept. 11 -- arresting more than 500 members and deporting scores to other countries. Australia is a close U.S. ally, and Rowhani's statements were meant for Washington's ears as well as Canberra's.

Rowhani's statement now that al Qaeda had planned to attack inside Iran emerges at an interesting time -- at a point when the U.S.-Iranian talks seem to be making progress. The claim might be meant to demonstrate a shared concern with Washington, though the plots themselves -- if they did in fact exist -- likely predated the detente between Washington and Tehran.

In Rowhani's words, "Their [Al Qaeda's] plans for a wide range of terrorist acts inside Iran were neutralized by our intelligence organizations." This comment suggests a time frame that likely would span the last several months, at the very least. Intelligence agencies aren't known to operate with lightning speed, and uncovering such plots can take weeks, months or even years. In addition, Rowhani claimed in May -- when Tehran and Washington were still doing more shadowboxing than secret talking -- that his government had started the crackdown on al Qaeda years ago.

Iran has reason to worry. Al Qaeda is no doubt unhappy with the Khamanei-Khatami government's cooperation with the Bush administration, nor will it appreciate Tehran's willingness to extradite its members to other countries like Egypt, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, where members of the network would be tortured and jailed, if not executed.

Various reports, rumors and flies on the wall have claimed that several senior-level al Qaeda members are hiding out in Iran, including Egyptians Ayman al Zawahiri and Seif al Adel, Kuwaiti Sulaiman Abu Ghaith and Osama bin Laden's son, Saad. If Tehran were to extradite these men, it would deal a crippling blow to al Qaeda. A few small-scale attacks aimed at destabilizing Tehran would not be an unexpected response.

http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/static_index.neo

In Iran, Clerics' Wealth Draws Ire

August 20, 2003
The Christian Science Monitor
Nicholas Birch

TEHRAN -- Two years ago, Hossein Yazdi was looking forward to a quiet retirement. Now he's back at work as one of Tehran's countless unofficial taxi drivers, trying to supplement a monthly pension of .

"[Two pounds] of meat costs $5 these days; most weeks my wife and I go without," he says. "If things carry on like this, people like us will soon be dying of starvation."

Daily conversation here turns with alarming speed to the daily struggle to make ends meet. But what makes such talk baffling is that most economists consider the country to be relatively well managed.

"Iran has huge resources of oil and gas, and the rise in oil prices since 1999 from $10 a barrel to over $26 today has given the economy an immense boost," says Yves Cadilhon, head of the French economic mission in Tehran.

So what are many Iranians complaining about? A powerful group of clerics and merchants who, critics say, have a stranglehold on the economy.

For Saeed Laylaz, an assistant manager at Iran's largest car manufacturer and a supporter of moderate President Muhammad Khatami, the gripes are an effect of political reforms. "People are no longer afraid to speak out: they're not getting angrier, just more vocal," he says.

Jahangir Amuzegar, who was Iran's finance minister in the 1970s, disagrees. "It's the envy factor," he says. "I doubt anybody is getting poorer, but the trouble is that a tiny minority is getting richer very quickly."

What happened to social justice?

That is a bitter pill to swallow given that "covenant of the meek," or social justice, was a favorite catchphrase of the leaders of Iran's 1979 revolution. But it's made far worse by the fact that the principal beneficiaries of wealth redistribution have been the regime clerics and their closest allies.

Among the main bastions of clerical control are the bonyad, immense foundations built up after 1979 from wealth confiscated from Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Iran's last shah. Ostensibly "charitable" organizations, they frequently use their wealth - up to 35 percent of the economy, according to analysts - for questionable purposes. In 1997, for instance, one senior cleric and bonyad boss announced his institution was offering $2.5 million for the assassination of novelist Salman Rushdie.

Another bonyad based in the holy city of Mashhad, in northeastern Iran, has used donations from as many as 8 million pilgrims a year to buy up 90 percent of the arable land in the surrounding region. Controlled since 1979 by arch-conservative Ayatollah Abbas Vaez-Tabazi - whose son and daughter are married to two of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's children - the foundation also owns universities and a Coca-Cola factory.

Backed by President Khatami, Iran's reform-minded parliament recently scrapped laws exempting the foundations from paying tax. Most observers doubt anything will change. Bonyad bosses, they say, can always fall back on privileged relations with Iran's banks, almost all state owned. "Credit is rationed," explains Mr. Amuzegar, "and it's rarely private business that gets it."

"I've never even bothered trying to get a bank loan," says Ataollah Khazali, owner of a small smelting works outside Tehran. "Perhaps the private banks will be better for people like me, but they're very new and few people trust them."

For now, cash-starved businessmen like Mr. Khazali are obliged to turn for credit to members of the country's bazaari class, strongly pro-regime merchants who double as money lenders.

"Iran lacks liquidity; we do our best to remedy that," one bazaari says. One method, he explains, is the systematic backdating of checks. "Strictly speaking it's illegal, but it enables us to play with money that isn't ours."

This bazaari is a small player, specializing only in copper goods. Others are far more powerful, and with political attachments. The current head of the influential pro-bazaari Coalition of Islamic Associations, Habibollah Asgar-Ouladi, was commerce minister in the 1980s, a position he used to procure lucrative foreign trade contracts for his brother. The family is now estimated to be worth $400 million.

Neither brother is renowned for his reformist sentiments. When Khatami broke his customary cautious reserve to warn against the rise of "religious fascism" in December 1998, Mr. Habibollah publicly reminded him he was "president of the whole nation and not just one group which insults and violates the holy values of the revolution."

"These bazaari are like a mafia, obeying no laws," says one clothes manufacturer, who buys all his fabric from them. "If one of them decides to boycott a company, they all do."

"Fortunately the younger generation is slightly more moderate," adds opposition economist Ali Rashidi.

Reworking crony capitalism

With Iran's chronic unemployment - officially 12.5 percent but probably closer to 20 percent - exacerbated by the arrival on the job market of 1980s baby boomers, analysts insist only a radical reworking of Iran's crony capitalism can stave off a crisis.

"The regime knows it has no choice but to liberalize," argues Mr. Laylaz. "They may use anti-Western rhetoric as their political trump card, but they can only save themselves by opening up."

But Amuzegar is more pessimistic. "It's not Islamic ideology that's holding the system up; it's the clerics' and bazaaris' hold on the economy," he says. "As long as they survive, so will the system."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0820/p06s01-wome.html

Bremer Worried About Iran Meddling in Iraq's Affairs

August 19, 2003
The Associated Press
Barry Schweid

WASHINGTON -- The State Department credited Syria on Tuesday with ''limited progress'' in restraining terrorists from crossing the border with Iraq and in expelling some extremists.

But President Bashar Assad's government has not gone far enough, particularly in closing the offices of extremist groups in Damascus, department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

Earlier, and before Tuesday's bloody truck bombing at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the top U.S. official in Iraq took a tougher line against Syria.

L. Paul Bremer, who is in charge of U.S. occupation forces, said Syria was allowing foreign terrorists to sneak across the border.

''We held talks with the Syrians in this regard,'' Bremer told the London-based Arabic newspaper Al Hayat. ''We hope to see better cooperation.''

Bremer also said he was still worried about Iran meddling in Iraq's affairs. He accused Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Iranian intelligence of actively working against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

''This is irresponsible conduct and runs counter to Iraq's interests. We believe that a free Iraq must not be subject to any interference by its neighbors,'' Bremer said.

Terrorism was on the agenda when Secretary of State Colin Powell held talks last spring in Damascus and during a meeting Assistant Secretary of State William Burns held last week with Assad in the Syrian capital. Syria opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

But Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said Monday in Jerusalem after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that Sharon had complained that Syria allows Hezbollah to ''run wild'' in Lebanon and does not feel the heat of U.S. diplomatic overtures.

Engel said in a telephone interview that he would push a bill to sanction Syria unless it stops helping Hezbollah guerrillas and ends its military occupation of Lebanon.

The State Department has called on Syria to end its support for the group, which has resumed its cross-border conflict with Israel. Assad, however, defended recent rocket attacks by Hezbollah guerrillas on the Israel-Lebanon border, telling Burns they were in response to Israeli provocations.

Syria is listed by the State Department as a sponsor of terrorism and Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

Boucher said ''the Syrians understand and continue to understand that we expect to see continued progress, we expect to see significant progress.''

The spokesman said ''we'll keep pressing in that direction.''

Boucher said it was important that Syria restrain the activities of terrorists and terrorist groups, police its borders to prevent crossings and use its influence to restraint activity on the border between Lebanon and Israel.

''We've all noted in the past some efforts that the Syrians have made, whether it was closing the border or kicking some people out,'' he said. ''But like in the other areas, it's been limited progress, it hasn't been enough, and we've kept pressing for more.''

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/231/wash/State_Department_credits_Syria:.shtml

Iraq Blast Fits Pattern of Sabotage

August 20, 2003
The Christian Science Monitor
Peter Grier and Faye Bowers

WASHINGTON AND BAGHDAD -– Insurgents opposed to the US presence in Iraq increasingly appear to have adopted a new strategy: create chaos by striking a wide range of targets.

Tuesday's suicide truck-bomb explosion at UN headquarters in Baghdad was but the latest in a string of attacks aimed at civilian and economic sites. Jordan's embassy in Baghdad was shattered by a similar bomb Aug. 7. Over the weekend Iraqi oil, water, and electricity lines were all hit by saboteurs.

The coordination involved in this campaign is unknown. US officials have said they believe that the violent Iraqi opposition is a polyglot mix of Saddam Hussein die-hards, Islamist terrorists, and criminals.

But some Western analysts believe that an influx of foreigners is driving this violence. Radical Muslims bent on jihad are now flooding into Iraq, some say, as they poured into Afghanistan during its years of Soviet occupation.

Whoever the perpetrators, their aim may be to convince the mass of Iraqis who are neither strongly anti- nor pro-American that the current situation is intolerable. They probably want to layer fear on top of the frustration and anger already felt by an Iraqi population whose economy and infrastructure are in shambles.

"The whole purpose is to demonstrate that the Americans are not in control. Nobody is safe," says a former intelligence officer with 25 years experience in the region.

The explosion at the UN's Baghdad headquarters, based in a three-story converted hotel, was the deadliest attack on an Iraqi soft target yet.

The nature of the strike showed the desperation of those who oppose the US presence in Iraq, claimed President Bush in an audio statement from his ranch in Crawford, Texas. He vowed that the US would persevere.

"The terrorists who struck today have again shown their contempt for the innocent; they showed their fear of progress and their hatred of peace," said Mr. Bush. "They're the enemies of the Iraqi people."

An enormous amount of explosives was used in the attack, according to Bernard Kerik, the former New York police commissioner now involved in the Iraqi rebuilding effort. The force of the blast ripped off the front of the building.

Early reports from the United Nations said that at least 14 people had been killed, including the top UN official in the country, Sergio Vieira de Mello.

Bystanders - the concerned, the curious, and the media - could only speculate about the nature of the blast as dusk fell in Baghdad.

One man said the bomber had been in a cement mixer whose driver was still in the vehicle as the explosion occurred.

The US military swarmed over the area in the wake of the attack, with dozens of Humvees converging on the site and helicopters circling overhead.

Those on the scene found it difficult to imagine a motive. The UN does not have a central role in Iraqi reconstruction at the moment, though it does distribute aid.

The UN's oil-for-food program, now being phased out in the wake of the US invasion, has funded regular food rations that have kept Iraqis fed for several years. Although the UN is associated in many Iraqis' minds with efforts to find and destroy Iraq's weapons, it has also maintained extensive humanitarian programs in the country.

The attack may have been "because there were so many foreigners there, probably," says Feriyal Scott, personnel director of the World Health Organization office in Baghdad. "And probably because the UN did not support the previous government [of Iraq]."

Analysts outside the country said that while they could not be sure about the reasons for the attack, it was likely the UN building was chosen almost at random because it was both a symbol of the West and vulnerable.

Blowing up the UN, as well as blowing up oil pipelines and water mains, can only make the ordinary life of Iraqis more miserable. Thus it seems obvious that the campaign of destruction aims to create chaos and deliberately harm the ability of the United States to administer Iraq.

"This could be very devastating to [US] efforts," says Judith Yaphe, an Iraq expert at the National Defense University.

It's possible that the attack was carried out by remnants of the Hussein regime, says Ms. Yaphe. Some of Mr. Hussein's elite forces, such as the Special Republican Guard, received training in car bombs and other means of sabotage.

But the smoothness of the planning and the clever choice of unexpected targets points to a more experienced kind of terrorist organization, according to Yaphe. That might mean jihadis crossing from Syria or Iran.

"I can believe there are all kinds of forces coming to play here," she says.

A US attack last month on an alleged terrorist training camp in the desert west of Baghdad killed 70 foreign fighters. They included Saudis, Yemenis, Afghans, and Sudanese, according to news reports.

A statement purportedly from Al Qaeda broadcast Aug. 18 on Arab satellite television asserted that the recent spate of attacks in Iraq was indeed the work of such jihadis.

Whatever the nature of the opposition, it is clearly adjusting, adapting, and searching out targets that have not yet been protected.

That makes life more difficult for US administrators on a number of levels. More troops might have to be dispatched for the guarding of pipelines and other infrastructure, for instance - stretching an already thin force.

Pressure to send yet more soldiers to Iraq might increase. On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona said publicly, "I think they need more people."

Mr. McCain did not specify how many additional troops he thought were necessary. Current US end strength in Iraq is about 140,000.

At the same time, nations that the US is attempting to persuade to join the occupation effort may become more reluctant to get involved. India, Pakistan, and other such countries might be wary about sending their units into a clearly hostile country.

"Most have wanted to avoid this for obvious reasons, and this is going to make it [easier for them to do so]," says Jim Walsh, an international security expert at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

The real target of the blast was not so much the UN as the Iraqi people at large, according to Mr. Walsh. Without their confidence, the US occupation of Iraq won't succeed in building a stable nation.

"It's hard to get [the insurgents] unless the average Iraqi has faith and ... a sense of security and sees their future best hope is for a successful reconstruction," says Walsh.

But a simmering summer with poor electrical service and 60 percent unemployment has already hammered Iraqi morale. US military tactics that seem as occasionally heavy-handed may only become more so as the search for Hussein adherents and terrorists intensifies.

Both the Shiite and Sunni Muslim religious establishments have taken umbrage at recent US actions, say other experts. The establishment of an Iraqi governing council may have been a step in the right direction, but, like US administrators, the Iraqi leaders have to operate from behind barbed wire and a guard of US guns.

"I don't think we are poised to break out of this very quickly," says the former intelligence officer with expertise in the region.

- Cameron Barr contributed from Baghdad.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0820/p01s01-woiq.html