"As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

Those were the words of the United States President George W Bush in his State of the Union address; a message to the Iranian people, as he reprimanded their country for sponsoring terror.

In her jet-setting tour, the newly appointed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assuaged fears that the USwould make Iran its next target in the War against Terror.

Although we might be a little assured by Rice's words for the short term, Bush's own record in office means that we can never be certain. We have to bear in mindthat while he immediately attacked Afghanistan (and failed to get Osama bin Laden) following the tragedy of Sept 11, 2001 he then shifted his attention to Iraq.

There is much to be deplored about Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime, yet Bush was erroneously equating Iraq with Al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction that were capable of being deployed against the West points which he has failed to prove.

There have been many oppressive states around the world that have been the allies of the US and by virtue of that friendship have been able to continue their human rights abuses. The US too have been far from respecting human rights and due process in Guantanamo Bay the irony is that in defending freedom from terrorists, the US has both indulged in their own terror while ignoring freedom. To use the rhetoric of freedom while disregarding international law in going to war in Iraq has set a dangerous precedent.

And Bush should not continue the mistake by moving across the borders to Iran. The reasons stack up against his macho talk.

No proven link

First, there is no link between Al-Qaeda and the Iranian government, just as there is no proven link between the terrorist network and Iraq. In fact Iraq's spurious link with Al-Qaeda appears stronger in contrast because not only are both Muslims and were at that time holding grudges against the Americans but both were America's allies, Osama bin Laden in the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and, well, Saddam Hussein in waging war against the then newly-installed Islamic revolutionary government in Iran.

Secondly, Iran may be suffering from severe unemployment and an uncertain economy, but as the New Statesman recently wrote, it will not be as easily defeated as Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Iran is not a hodgepodge imperial creation, but a nation with a proud history stretching over 2500 years. The US may speak about freedom now and tries to ally itself with the youth which clamour for change in Iran, but less than three decades ago they were staunch supporters of the Shah of Iran whose oppression energised the opposition which in turn culminated in the Islamic Revolution.

The official anti-Americanism will grow deeper and become more genuine in the event of Iran being attacked, perhaps even more profound than in neighbouring Iraq.

Thirdly, attacking Iran will make the job harder for the reformers. Many people have expressed disappointment at the pace President Muhammad Khatami is delivering reform in Iran but the truth is he has made some changes and the gesture marks an important turning point in the country. An invasion of Iran, as stated, will galvanise the anti-American sentiment that will strengthen the more conservative segments of the Iranian government.

It will be especially hard for the reformers to get the popular support of the people, and as many critics of the war have said again and again: imposing democracy by force paradoxically weakens democracy itself. In an invaded Iran, it is not too remote to believe that an immediate election would return more hardliners which will make a mockery of the American rhetoric.

Fourthly, attacking Iran will make the job harder in Iraq. The Shiite slate won big in the recent Iraqi elections, easily defeating the slate sponsored by US-ally Iyad Allawi. This is not surprising as Shiites form the majority of Iraqis and therefore attacking Iran will only aggravate the animosity of Iraqis which will complicate the already Herculean task of rebuilding Iraq. True, Bush has successfully removed the Baathist government of Iraq and the elections were more of a success than what many sceptics had predicted; but he must also bear in mind about the more immediate bread and butter issues of the Iraqi people.

Gas contract

Fifthly, attacking Iran will make the job harder in the Muslim world. There seems to be some progress made in Palestine, but a great deal of scepticism still remains after numerous disappointments and the war in Afghanistan and Iran still fresh in the memories of many Muslims. However even the minute amount of goodwill will disappear when Iran is attacked, and the task of generating the same amount of goodwill will take much longer.

Sixthly, attacking Iran will make the job harder for trans-Atlantic co-operation. Relationship between the US and France as well as Germany has already been stained by the invasion of Iraq. Currently, the two countries as well as Britain prefer a negotiated settlement to the whole Iranian nuclear issue a tactic that Bush seems to condone. Going to war will complicate the trans-Atlantic co-operation further.

One wonders how much Tony Blair is willing to concede this time as the general election in the UK is looming and with the issue of trust and his credibility on the line.

The seventh reason attacking Iran will make the job harder in the US. Tax cuts and the war in Iraq have caused a great dent in the US budget. Social services have been hit hard, affecting many working class Americans. The government is now proposing another controversial measure over a crucial issue: privatising social security. Going to war against Iran will go deeper into the public coffers as well as haemorrhage important public support.

Nevertheless, the most important reason that would probably be in the mind of Bush and his neo-Conservative friends would probably be none of the above: Fortune magazine had revealed that a Halliburton subsidiary is engaged in a US$300 million gas contract in Iran. Now, unless Halliburton stands to get more from the war, then the war wouldn't be worthwhile, would it Mr President? It's this sort of things that give conspiracy theorists credence!

NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD comments on current issues, and contributes to the BBC World Service, Channel News Asia and malaysiakini, among others. His blog is at http://www.niknazmi.com .