By Farshid Motahari

TEHRAN: The legally-binding resolution by the UN Security Council ordering Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities by August 31 has pushed Iran into a difficult situation – and the region into a dangerous one.

While Iranian officials have unanimously rejected the ultimatum and still refer to their rights under the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to pursue nuclear technology, it remains unclear how the Islamic establishment plans to proceed.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi warned that the Western package of proposals – aimed at persuading Iran to suspend the enrichment process in return of economic incentives, including a light-water reactor and provision of nuclear fuel – would become "null and void" in case of an anti-Iran resolution.

But Assefi’s counterpart in the government, Gholam-Hossein Elham, said Iran would reply to the package as scheduled on August 22, and even stressed that "the channel for negotiations is still open." President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would – "regardless of threats and ultimatums" – continue its path until completion of the nuclear fuel cycle.

His chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, even proclaimed expansion of the enrichment process, including an increase of the cascades, part of the technology involved.

At the same however, Larijani said that Iran would even be willing to negotiate with the West – "within a rational framework" – on the enrichment process.

The Iranian parliament, dominated by hardliners, has reportedly already started plans to approve a post-resolution bill which, in the worst case, could include dropping the country’s commitment to both the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"It is important for Iran to understand that this resolution has even been backed by Russia and China. Iran would do well to underestimate neither the resolution nor the solidarity of the veto powers," former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer said during a visit to Tehran last week.

Tehran had counted on a veto by Security Council members China and Russia owing to their strategic political and economic ties with Iran, and were therefore shocked by their approval.

Fischer also told Iranian officials that the West could simply not understand Iran’s hurry for a nuclear fuel cycle while the country only had one still unfinished nuclear reactor in the southern Bushehr plant, for which nuclear fuel was to be provided by Russia for at least ten years.

However, a tendency to favour renewed negotiations with the Europeans still seems stronger among Iran’s leaders than referring to retaliatory acts, such as provoking an oil crisis.

"We do not want go into extremes. We do not want people (in the West) to feel cold (in winter). We therefore hope that the West would not force us to resort to reactions we really do not want," Larijani said.

Observers in Tehran say that imposing an ultimatum on Iran through the Security Council would leave Iran no option other than to resort to extreme measures, such as cutting co-operation with the IAEA and continuing its nuclear programmes without IAEA inspections and monitoring cameras.

"The question is whether to get the best out of a minimum or the worst out of a maximum," said an eastern European diplomat in Tehran, while doubting whether the status quo of the Iranian nuclear case was "really worth starting another international crisis."

"To keep at least a slight chance of a settlement, the West should have waited for Iran’s reply (on August 22) before referring the case to the Security Council," a member of the International Strategic Studies Centre in Tehran said.

"It is clear that not only the current government, but also the Ahmadinejad opposition, cannot give in to an ultimatum and would eventually prefer a confrontation to losing face and national pride." – DPA