THE new threat of a "terrorist attack" is intimidating the world. But: whose interests does "international terrorism" really serve?

While the world was gradually beginning to question the Israeli offensive in the Lebanon in the face of so much destruction and the many civilian deaths, something has occurred that is beyond any coincidence and has arrived at an opportune moment to justify the so-called "war on terrorism" implemented by the United States and its allies.

On August 10, British security forces announced that they had foiled the plans of a gang attempting to blow up various passenger aircraft flying from the UK to the United States.

Initially, the British police detained 24 suspects, according to them from "radicalized Islamic circles."

In that context "international terrorism" put all the "Western and civilized world" on maximum alert, and the accompanying fears on the part of all its governments and inhabitants.

In the UK the level of alert was "critical situation." On its Internet page MI5 (the secret service) stated on its web page that the maximum point on the level of alert should be maintained. The agency asked the public to "be very vigilant" to possible suspicious acts and immediately report any anomaly to the police.

Like a rapidly spreading virus, paranoia emerged in the Western world, increasing security levels to the maximum. According to the world media, various international airports opted to cancel flights and make exhaustive checks for "fear of some of the terrorists involved still being on the loose."

To date, the 24 people detained are Muslims of British nationality. According to U.S. intelligence, at least 50 persons were involved. As opposed to the July 7 (7J) attacks in London last year, intelligence sources assure that there is a direct link between the detainees and high-level members of Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network.

Within this framework, various scenarios of psychosis were recorded, obliging many nations to raise their levels of alert. There was news of emergency landings on account of packages containing dishes and trays, plus a message written in a foreign language. Everything and everyone is suspect.

As a regular event serviceable to his strategy, within minutes of the announced "frustrated terrorist plot," U.S. President George W. Bush assured that his country is "at war with Islamic fascists."

Bush also took advantage of the incident to announce that cooperation between Washington and London had been excellent.

The president also declared that it was a mistake to believe that there is no threat to the United States, affirming that while the country is safer than before September 11, it is not yet completely so.

Thus emerged a new chapter in this tragic soap opera written by Bush and his hawks, which commenced on September 11, 2001.

It is important not to be naïve and to explore this issue more deeply in order to elucidate whose interests a situation such as this serves.

Since 11S, U.S. foreign policy has generated a series of changes and the unilateral implantation of its "war on terrorism." After the March 11, 2205 attack in Spain and that of 7J in the UK, Europe and a large part of the Western world have gone along this path leading to what occurred this week.

But what a large part of the international community is not taking the time to meditate upon are what factors and results come into play in this scenario.

The world has been seeing and hearing about "conspiracies," "terrorist plots" and "threats" for the last five years. At a time when the world’s attention is on other important issues, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are making their appearance via videos of dubious origin.

Moreover, the situation is propitious for Bush. After imposing a "global counter-terrorist war" to protect all the nations of the planet, Washington is reaffirming its own doctrine of "national security," "preventive war" agenda and pretending to demonstrate itself as the paladin of the 21st century needed to put an end to this threat.

And not only at planetary level, but also at internal level.

We should recall that there are congressional elections next November in the United States. According to surveys, the Republicans could lose their majority in both the House and Senate.

That would be a serious blow to the ailing Bush administration, and could lead to a new Watergate.

And so, as in the 2004 presidential elections, another little piece of help from Al Qaeda would serve as a weapon to reverse that panorama.

At that time a video of Bin Laden threatening a "terrorist attack on New York" allowed Bush his second mandate after a very hard-fought electoral campaign.

In the case of the U.S.’ Spanish ally José María Aznar, a prescription that is so very American led to his displacement by his rival José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero after 11M, and in the wake of earlier opinion polls who put Aznar in the lead.

The same strategy was tried in Italy, with Silvio Berlusconi (another Bush ally), with dismal results. In March, Antonio Martino, then the defense minister, stated that the possibly of a terrorist attack on the eve of the April 9-10 polls "could not be excluded," in order to influence the results. The attack never existed and Berlusconi’s party was the grand loser.

It was demonstrated then that only the Americans could gain benefit from the "terror syndrome" and thus carry out their missions.

A study by IAR-Noticias reflects this situation: Bush and his administration were the main benefactors of the 11S, the 11M and the 7J.

The study notes that with the 11S, Washington gained the consensus for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. With 11M and its recreated impact in the United States, Bush gained the presidential reelection in 2004. And with 7J it succeeded in renewing the Patriot Act, an essential weapon in the "counterterrorist war".

Moreover, it is worthwhile noting that in each one of Washington’s military invasions to "do away with terrorism" the weapons, oil and technological corporations and those of services to the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex obtained huge profits.

In that context, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are no more than functional tools for Washington’s needs in the search for a great new enemy to replace the extinguished Soviet Union and the threat of communism.

And the results leap into view. The Northern power is achieving a national and international consensus to back and justify its policies of military invasion based on the designs of its empire.

Thus "international terrorism" justifies the new U.S. "doctrine of national security," the "preventive strikes," internal espionage and moreover, the elaboration of a new "military conflict hypothesis."

In the international scenario, where conventional military wars among states are not frequent, the phantom of Bin Laden serves as a pretext for the military expansion of the United States and its allies.

Are there just a few of us who have grasped that situation? No, by the grace of humanity revealing voices are making themselves more and more heard in various parts of the world.

According to a survey run by the prestigious Zogby International Institute in the United States last May, 42% of U.S. citizens doubt the official version of 11S. Moreover, they believe that the investigatory commission produced a cover up operation. But, a further 44% believe that Bush utilized the attacks to unleash the war on Iraq.

From another point of view, Russian General Leonid Ivashov, who was chief of the Russian armed forces at the time of the 11S attacks, maintains in a note published by Red Voltaire that international terrorism "does not exist" and that the September 11 attack "was a show."

"What we are seeing is no more than a terrorism manipulated by the great powers that would not exist without them," Ivashov wrote.

Beyond "conspiracy" theories or a "real attack" in terms of 11S, it is a fact that Al Qaeda is presumably embodying an Islamic fight against the West. This appreciation is moreover, unfortunate, and not only because of what is being said on this side of the world.

At the beginning of August, in the midst of the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, an alleged televised video by Ayman al-Zawahiri, introduced as the "Al Qaeda Number 2," called on the Sunni and Shiite communities to unite against Israel.

Interrogated by the Russian Ria-Novosti agency, a Hizbollah spokesman declared that the video was a fake prepared by the U.S. and Israeli intelligence services. He also emphasized that the Shiite movement has never had and will never have relations with Al Qaeda due to the differences between the two groups, above all in matters related to religion and politics.

"Hizbollah defends the interests of the Lebanon and the entire Arab world while Al Qaeda is playing the U.S. administration’s game and its actions do nothing more than damage Islam and all Muslims," he concluded.

Terrorism and fear, the other weapon of the United States and its allies. Or if not, it is worth reflecting on this. Washington is losing the war on "Islamic terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is losing the war on "Islamic terrorism" in Lebanon and the Middle East.

In the face of this adverse situation, a new "potential terrorist attack" has appeared as if fallen from the skies.

To date, neither the United States with the CIA have contributed precise information on the existence or the death of Bin Laden, and to date, nobody has revealed how he was able to escape from the military siege of and the missiles over Afghanistan.