He said the information, received on January 5, needs to be carefully examined which has been sent to the Ministry of Interior for necessary inquiry in accordance with the law.

The results of the inquiry, the Prime Minister added, will be shared with the government of India in due course of time.

“We are prepared to cooperate with India to uncover full facts and hence offered to India for joint inquiry.”

India has, however, not responded to Pakistan’s proposals and hoped they will see merit in it and accept joint inquiry, he added.

“Serious sustained and pragmatic cooperation is the way forward.”

The Prime Minister reiterated that the country condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and said Pakistan was among the first to condemn Mumbai terror attacks.

Citing U.S. and foreign officials, the Times reported the White House was unable to determine whether Israel had decided to carry out the strike before Washington objected or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was trying to get Bush to act more decisively before he leaves office this month.

Israel’s request was for the specialized bunker-busting bombs that it wanted for the attack that tentatively involved flying over Iraq to reach Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located, the newspaper said.  The White House spurned requests for the bombs and flyover but said it would improve intelligence-sharing with Israel on covert U.S.  efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear programne.

The United States did give Israel one item on its shopping list:

high-powered radar, called the X-Band, to detect any Iranian missile launchings.  It was the only element in the Israeli request that could be used solely for defence, not offense, the report said.

Israel, known to have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, bombed the site of a suspected atomic reactor site in Syria in 2007.

Details of the expanded U.S. covert programme and the Bush administration’s efforts to talk Israel out of attacking Iran emerged from 15 months of interviews with current and former U.S. officials, international nuclear inspectors, outside experts and European and Israeli officials, the Times said.

None of those interviewed would speak on the record, the paper said, adding it omitted many details of the covert efforts from its report at the request of senior U.S. intelligence and administration officials.

It said the interviews also suggested “that while Mr. Bush was extensively briefed on options for an overt American attack on Iran’s facilities, he never instructed the Pentagon to move beyond contingency planning, even during the final year of his presidency, contrary to what some critics have suggested.”

But aware that financial sanctions against Iran were inadequate, Bush turned to the CIA, according to people involved in the covert programme, authorizing a broader effort aimed at Iran’s industrial infrastructure supporting its nuclear programs, the Times said.

While the paper said details were closely held by U.S. officials, it quoted one as saying, “It was not until the last year that they got really imaginative about what one could do to screw up the system.”

But the official said “none of these are game-changers” in that the efforts would not necessarily cripple Iran’s programme.

Under Bush, whose term ends on January 20 when Barack Obama becomes president, the United States has sought tougher U.N.  sanctions against Iran to halt its nuclear programme, which Western nations believe is designed for making weapons.

Iran, which has no formal diplomatic relations with the United States, says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, not weapon oriented.

The Times said some Bush administration officials remained skeptical of the covert programme’s chances of success given what one said was Iran’s proximity to achieving weapons capacity.

Others held that Israel would not have been dissuaded from attacking if they believed the U.S. effort was unlikely to prove effective, the paper said.

In its dealings with Israel, Washington was especially distressed by Israel’s request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, a request the White House flatly denied, the paper reported.

But the exchanges and tension prompted Washington to step up its intelligence-sharing with Israel, including the new U.S.  efforts aimed at sabotaging Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The Times said its interviews indicated Bush was convinced by officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, that an overt attack on Iran would likely be ineffective, bringing the expulsion of international inspectors and driving Iran’s nuclear effort further from view.

“Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved,” the paper said.

Bush instead opted for more intensive covert action, it said, adding that those operations and the issue of whether Israel would agree to anything less than a conventional attack on Iran posed vexing problems for Obama.

In an interaction with American and international experts at a Washington think tank, Stephen Hedley explained the U.S. foreign policy pursued under outgoing President George Bush and acknowledged Islamabad’s anti‑terrorism resolve as well as its critical counterterrorism role over the years since September 11, 2001.

Hadley, who spoke on the eve of Vice President‑elect Joseph Biden’s visit to the region as US senator for a first‑hand assessment for the new administration’s Southwest Asian policy, pointed out the importance that Pakistan’s stability holds for the United States in both bilateral and regional perspectives.

“I think that Pakistan is a victim of terror. And one of the things that people have focused on is, well, activities in certain of the border regions of Pakistan make more difficult achieving democratic stability in Afghanistan ‑‑‑ But I think one of the things we’ve also seen is that those—that terrorist presence—Taliban, al Qaeda, and other extremist groups—also are a threat to Pakistan.

“And I think the—this democratic government in Pakistan understands that. If you talk to President (Asif Ali) Zardari, he says, you don’t need to tell me that Pakistanis are victims of terror; the terrorists killed my wife (Benazir Bhutto),”he stated at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In the speech one of the last by top officials of the Bush Administration that transfers power to Obama Administration on January 20 ‑ Hadley said the democratic government has brought with it an opportunity to confront the challenges of violent extremism more effectively. At the same time he recognized the toughness of the problem.

“So what you have is a democratic government in Pakistan, and we think that is a real opportunity, because we think that democratic government has the opportunity to rally the people of Pakistan in—behind what is going to be a very difficult fight.”
Defending Pakistan’s role in the fight against terrorism in the face of complex situation, he cited Islamabad’s success against al‑Qaeda in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 events and reminded that last year “Pakistan went into a very difficult political transition from which this new government has emerged.”

“And that’s where we are—a new government that I think is talking clearly that it wants to confront terror ‑‑‑ and has probably as difficult a challenge to deal with the various groups that it has of any nation.

“And that’s why I think it is going to be one of the key challenges, because success in Pakistan, overcoming this challenge, is important for stability in Pakistan, which is important to us in itself. 

But stability in Pakistan is also going to be important and success in the war on terror in Pakistan is also going to be important if we’re going to take care of the problem in Afghanistan and if we are going to get Pakistan and Indian relations to continue on a positive footing,” he said in disagreement with an Indian journalist who suggested Pakistan had not done enough despite getting U.S. assistance.

“So there is a lot at stake in Pakistan, and they have as daunting a task as any government today. And it is going to be very important for the new team to support their efforts, and I’m encouraged.  I think you’ve seen statements from President‑elect Obama, certainly from Vice President‑elect   Biden, that I think they understand the challenge that Pakistan faces, and that means the challenge we face.”

Comment: It is worth mentioning that Pakistan has done more in war against terror than any other country, even more so than United States has, considering the toll on Pakistan’s economy, human death toll, suicide bombings and over 120k soldiers deployed. Moreover, Pakistan is the lifeline to NATO and American forces who are fighting war on terror in Afghanistan. Pakistan paid with blood and has done enough for its “friends.”