IRAN: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday reiterated his refusal to comply with a United Nations Security Council demand that Iran stop enriching uranium by next Friday.
"It's not like we just follow whatever they issue," Mr Ahmadinejad told a press conference in Tehran.
The US is pressing for a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN charter if, as expected, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Friday confirms Iran's non-compliance with the council's demand of March 29th.
Chapter 7 provides for the "interruption of economic relations", the "severance of diplomatic relations" and the "use of armed force".
Mr Ahmadinejad discounted the possibility of economic sanctions. "I think even the two or three countries who oppose us are wise enough not to resort to such a big mistake," he said. "Those who are speaking of sanctions would suffer more harm."
Iranian defence minister Mostafa Mohamed-Najjar said America would face "a humiliating defeat" worse than the botched raid to rescue US hostages 26 years ago yesterday, if the US "chooses the military option".
Georges Le Guelte, a former executive at the French atomic energy commission and the IAEA, and a leading expert on the Iranian programme, said Friday's report could be a turning point in the nuclear showdown.
"If the IAEA concludes that the Iranians have enriched even very small quantities of uranium to 3.5 per cent, it means they know how the mechanism functions," Mr Le Guelte said.
"Whatever happens, Iran will never be able to get rid of the suspicion that they may be doing something secretly elsewhere without our knowing about it."
Mr Ahmadinejad implied Iran would pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - and all co-operation with the IAEA - if sanctions were imposed.
"What has more than 30 years of membership in the agency given us?" he asked.
"Working in the framework of the NPT and the agency is our concrete policy. [ But] if we see that they are violating our rights, or they don't want to accept [ our rights], well, we will reconsider."
The treaty allows a member to withdraw on three months' notice if its "vital interests" are threatened, Mr Le Guelte said. It was nearly impossible to set a legal definition of what constituted "vital interests".
"If Iran withdraws, it means: 'Yes. We're building weapons'," he added.
François Nicoullaud, who was France's ambassador to Tehran until July 2005, said the use of force against Iran could provide the perfect pretext for it to withdraw from the treaty.
"If Iran's declared installations were bombed by another member - all the more so if it was done with tactical nuclear weapons - Iran would have far more solid arguments for leaving the NPT," Mr Nicoullaud said.
Mr Le Guelte said it would be "disastrous" for an NPT member to acquire nuclear weapons. (Israel, India and Pakistan have atomic weapons, but never adhered to the treaty.) "Whatever the country, whatever the regime, we are in a system where there is a certain order," he said. "The day that order is broken, there is no more system. If an NPT signatory obtains nuclear weapons, it's finished. There are no more rules, no barriers."
Regarding Israel, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "This fake regime cannot logically continue to live."
Also yesterday, Israeli defence minister Shaul Mofaz told a press conference: "Since Hitler, we have not faced such a threat."
The US last month called for bilateral talks with Iran in the hope of controlling the violence in Iraq.
But Mr Ahmadinejad said yesterday the Americans "did not have a good attitude", and "with the formation of the new [ Iraqi] government there is no need".